Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF EDINBURGH (GUIDED BUSWAYS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Lockerbie

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 6 July—Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 6 July 1998; c. 6—what assessment he made of the implications of his description of the Libyan suspects in respect of the Lockerbie bombing as the perpetrators of that bombing for the conduct of any court proceedings in Scotland. [49914]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): On 10 July, I wrote to my hon. Friend explaining that that was merely a slip of the tongue on my part in failing to refer to the two Libyan accused as the "alleged perpetrators". The Government are committed to a fair trial for the two Libyan suspects.

Mr. Dalyell: I have no supplementary question as I have an Adjournment debate on the subject tonight.

Mr. James Wallace: Can the Minister comment on today's reports that the Government are about to change their policy on the locus of any trial? As a lawyer, I have reservations about such a precedent, but does he agree that it is in the interests of the victims' families that the accused should be brought to trial and that that may overcome concern about where that trial should be held?

Mr. McLeish: We are dealing with an act of mass murder. The Government are determined to bring those responsible to justice, and that has always been our objective. It remains our view that a Scottish or a United States court is the place for the trial. We do not accept criticism of the Scottish judicial system and its procedures, in which we have every confidence. However,

we are willing to explore any option that will bring justice for the families, and discussions on such options have taken place from time to time.

Dr. Liam Fox: May I ask for clarification of that answer? Is today's story in The Guardian true? Have the Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State discussed the matter, and is a statement forthcoming shortly? If so, when will the Lord Advocate—the independent prosecutor—make a statement in the House of Lords, to which he is responsible, as he promised to do on 25 June?

Mr. McLeish: It is no secret that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in close contact with his American counterpart on issues of mutual interest, of which Lockerbie is a major one. Options are always being explored, and nothing has ever been ruled out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to speculate on this morning's press comment.

Dr. Fox: Given the Government's record of leaking and speculating to the press before coming to the House, we have an absolute right to know that the Government are not considering a change of policy. I asked the Minister a simple question. Is the essence of the story in The Guardian this morning true, or is it not true?

Mr. McLeish: The House will accept that this is a serious issue. Let me repeat that discussions have taken place—and are taking place—about important subjects, of which this is one. No prudent Government would wish to rule out any option. We are dealing with an act of mass murder, and we owe it to the families to bring those responsible to justice. That is our key objective, and I hope that the House can unite around it. It would be foolish to speculate on press comment. All options are being considered, and the House should have confidence in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will do his best for the families and for justice.

Dr. Fox: As we approach the summer recess, is it reasonable to assume that there will be no change in policy while hon. Members will be unable to ask appropriate questions of Ministers? Will the Minister continue to defend the principle—defended by the Government and their predecessors—that there will be no caving in to political expediency? We must not open up the possibility of years of litigation in a foreign court rather than the achievement of the swift resolution of the Lockerbie case that the relatives, Members of the House and the people of Scotland all want.

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman is simply not listening. I said in my opening comments that our view remains that a Scottish or United States court is the place for this trial. We do not accept criticisms of the system, and we continue to have every confidence in the Scottish judicial system and procedures.

Prison Suicides

Sir Robert Smith: What action he is taking to reduce the number of prison suicides. [49915]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): A revised suicide management strategy was introduced in all Scottish prisons last month and is being underpinned by an injection of some £1 million to improve the supervision of at-risk prisoners. A special task force will look in detail at the deaths that have occurred this year to consider what factors were involved and whether lessons may be learned.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer. He answered much of my question 12 days ago, after it was tabled but before he could reply in the House. Does he recognise that, in the long term, we must tackle prison overcrowding and the pressures and problems that it creates? In the spirit of what the Secretary of State said in the Scottish Grand Committee about setting targets by which the Government feel they should be judged, does the Minister have any targets by which the House can judge the Government's performance on delivering prison reform?

Mr. McLeish: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in home affairs. We have a suicide prevention strategy in place in Scotland, but we are keen to underpin it with improvements in staffing and medical facilities. We are creating a further residential care unit in Barlinnie prison. Overcrowding is a problem and means that we cannot spend enough time with individual prisoners. That is why there will be further reforms in the Prison Service to overcome the problem. We are also pursuing a radical programme of alternatives to custody to provide appropriate alternatives for sheriffs in every court in the country. Properly used, they will provide more appropriate care, treatment and punishment while easing the burden of overcrowding in prisons which is having a detrimental effect on our ability to tackle suicide and drugs.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome this initiative. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend that several suicides have taken place at Greenock prison. May I impress on him the need for careful assessment during the admission phase, particularly for remand prisoners? In Greenock, most of those who committed suicide were remand prisoners. Assessment of new prisoners should be carried out carefully and in a controlled way.

Mr. McLeish: There is a problem with risk assessment when prisoners enter prison. For example, Barlinnie turns around 200 prisoners on a Monday. That is an enormous problem. Investment is being put into prisons to ensure modern medical assessment of the risks. I am concerned that, over the past few months, there have been a tremendous number of suicides at Corton Vale, Barlinnie, Greenock and Longriggend. The Government are taking decisive action to try to tackle that problem. There can never be a guarantee that we can exclude suicide or people harming themselves in prisons, but we have an ambitious programme. I sincerely hope that what we are doing will work.

Miss Anne McIntosh: What is the number of suicides per head of the prison population in

Scottish prisons compared with that in England and Wales? Is it higher or lower? Can the Minister explain the reasons for the difference?

Mr. McLeish: The figure is much higher. It is one of the problems and it has reinforced our resolve to tackle this issue with determination. Suicide is a complex issue which causes despair to staff and families. We are keen to try to analyse what is happening, but there is a higher incidence of suicide in prisons in Scotland than in England. That is not in itself a reason for being interested in doing something about it, but it shows that we have much to do in Scotland. We are putting in place the proper procedures. They need time to work. I assure the hon. Lady that we are doing everything possible to make it possible to reduce the number of suicides and to give prisons the confidence to start dealing with prisoners as they should.

Child Care Strategy

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What progress has been made in the provision of nursery and pre-school places under the child care strategy. [49916]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): We have already achieved a major expansion in pre-school education places and are on target to achieve universal provision by this winter. Following the comprehensive spending review, we will invest an extra £229 million over the period 1999–2002 in pre-school education and child care, leading to further substantial growth in places.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the announcement of such generous extra provision for pre-school care. My question may seem superfluous in the light of this morning's useful debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, but will he add to his reply by saying what help will be given to voluntary bodies that have had their pre-school provision stopped, or are about to have it stopped, because of the end of urban aid or other funding?

Mr. Galbraith: I recognise the considerable amount of work that my hon. Friend has put in and the effort that she has expended in propagating this policy. I am very pleased that we have been able to deliver for her.
This year, we have allocated an extra £4.8 million to local authorities, and the majority of those funds will be used for stabilisation and the provision of extra places. That is how we have tackled the problem of underfunding. In the next three years, we shall spend an additional £48 million to deal with those specific problems. We have not only a child care strategy for Scotland but the money to underpin it—and that has been delivered by a Labour Government.

Dounreay

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received regarding the proposed decommissioning of the Dounreay reprocessing plant. [49917]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Operational matters, including the decommissioning of facilities at Dounreay, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. None the less, I receive a wide range of correspondence relating to Dounreay. This has included suggestions that there should be a moratorium on new reprocessing contracts.

Mr. Swayne: What assessment has the Secretary of State made with the President of the Board of Trade of the possibility of reducing or halting operations at Sellafield? What radioactive material might be transferred to Dounreay and what measures would the Secretary of State put in place to deal with it?

Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for extending my remit and area of responsibility—it begins to sound almost like an empire. I am not responsible for Sellafield and I would not want to trespass on my right hon. Friend's responsibilities. Dounreay is interesting enough in itself.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work putting the Walker report on health and safety at Dounreay into the public domain so that much of the scaremongering and nonsense being spoken about the place could be put into proper context? My colleagues on the Trade and Industry Committee visited Dounreay last month. I thank the Secretary of State on their behalf, but remind him that a great deal of work remains to be done at Dounreay. That work is necessary for Britain's nuclear safety, and I hope that he will continue to give it every encouragement.

Mr. Dewar: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I congratulate him and his Committee on the tenacious way in which they have investigated the difficulties that have occurred at Dounreay. As he said, the Health and Safety Executive-nuclear installations inspectorate report is a document of some importance and the focus of considerable speculation. I first became aware of it on 11 June and it was published on 15 June. Even when talking about the past and things that happened many years ago, it is important that the Government are open about such matters and put all available information in the public domain.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State explain why he became aware of that report so late in the day? Why was it not made known to Ministers before the debate, as considerable controversy surrounded the issue? If the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as reported in the press, wishes to apply for a so-called super pit at Dounreay for low-level nuclear waste, will that proposal have to go to a full planning inquiry, given that the present planning permission was based on a pit that is subject to erosion? In view of concerns about waste disposal at Dounreay—which has involved explosions and contamination—does the Secretary of State agree that a full-scale planning inquiry is needed for such an application?

Mr. Dewar: These are important and sensitive matters. I understand that the NII report went straight to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and I regret that it

was not available earlier. The Department of Trade and Industry is very much involved in the process and is taking up the matter with the UKAEA.
I have seen some press reports about an expansion of storage pits at Dounreay. I know that the nationalist party is very keen to inhibit and stop reprocessing of even the waste material on the site, so long-term storage becomes a particular problem for it. I shall have to take some advice about what exactly is intended as that will affect the appropriateness of any planning inquiry in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. I am certainly prepared to make some inquiries. If there is a firm plan—I am not aware of one—I shall address the hon. Gentleman's point by correspondence.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am a long-term admirer of the Secretary of State's ethereal wit, but will he descend for a moment to the mundane and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? If, by the action of the President of the Board of Trade, Sellafield's operations are curtailed or cease altogether, will he guarantee that material from Sellafield will not be classed as non-commercial and transferred to Dounreay?

Mr. Dewar: I genuinely welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Scottish family; we talk about a multicultural society in Scotland so, although this is really straining tolerance, I am prepared to do it. The foundation on which he bases his question is too hypothetical for me to attempt to answer it. I am not aware of any plans to close Sellafield: that would indeed be a major undertaking and significant in terms of strategic approach, so, self-evidently, the knock-on effects would have to be carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman is building on insubstantial grounds when he makes such suggestions.

Higher Education

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: If he will make a statement on the percentage of students currently attending Scottish universities from (a) Scotland, (b) England, Wales and Northern Ireland and (c) parts of the EU outside the United Kingdom. [49918]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): From the latest data available, approximately 71 per cent. of students attending Scottish higher education institutions are from Scotland; approximately 16 per cent. are from England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and approximately 4 per cent. are from other parts of the European Union.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. I am sure that he is aware that the Government's climbdown on the matter of charging different fees to students from different parts of the United Kingdom attending Scottish universities has been widely welcomed, and not only by the Opposition. What advice has he received about whether the Scottish Parliament will have the power to make it illegal to charge students from England, who attend Scottish universities, and students from Scotland, who attend Scottish universities, different fees?

Mr. Wilson: Given the Opposition's rather desperate plight, I understand that they have to claim triumphs


where none exist, but I assure the hon. Lady that we welcome the fact that the Lords eventually agreed with us. The offer to monitor the operation of all the changes was on the table from the outset and I have absolutely no problem with formalising it. Incidentally, I am delighted to learn that applications from England to St. Andrews university, which had some lobbying influence in these matters, are up, not down, on last year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might wonder whether the time of the House was not wasted just a little bit on that. The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that all these matters will become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision on tuition fees gives all universities in Scotland the task of trying to increase the number of young people from Scotland who attend them and to extend the range of opportunity available to people whom the universities might not, in the past, have tried to attract into university education?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we were wasting time on the diversion of whether applications from England to St. Andrews would go up or down by a couple of dozen, the reality of what the Government were doing elsewhere was far more important. We have been encouraging and putting real resources into encouraging wider access to Scottish universities and we have been very successful in that. I might add that I am particularly proud of the fact that in Scotland, and in Scotland alone, we have now abolished tuition fees for part-time students with low incomes. I understand that that is of absolutely no interest to the Opposition or to the House of Lords, but it is a very substantial achievement by the Government.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I offer my condolences to the Minister on having taken flak over a blatantly unfair policy and express the hope that that does not lead to his leaving the Scottish Office in too much of a hurry? Will he join me in condemning his ministerial colleagues who have failed to provide funds for fourth-year tuition fees for students in Scotland and have left him in an untenable position by accepting the need for a review?

Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman's wit is as razor sharp as ever.
One of the useful by-products of the debate was the securing of the first nationalist spending commitment since the wiping of the website. I must say that I am astonished by the commitment that the hon. Gentleman gave, on behalf of his party, to a Scottish Parliament's paying the £2 million for the students in question. The Scottish nationalists actually think that we should spend more of the Scottish budget on supporting students from outside Scotland than the £65 million net that we spend now. That is extraordinary—but it is a commitment that the hon. Gentleman has made and with which he will have to live.

Mr. Ian Davidson: May I take up the question of the social origins of students at higher and further education establishments? Do the Government intend to set targets for such institutions and direct them

towards increasing the number of students they recruit from sections of society that are currently grossly under-represented?

Mr. Wilson: The reality—about which I am deeply concerned—is that only 11 per cent. of school leavers from the lower-income social groups go into higher education compared with more than 80 per cent. from the higher-income groups. The Government are not prepared to tolerate such an inequality of opportunity and fulfilments of aspirations, which has lasted far too long.
We have given the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council a directive to promote wider access as one of its objectives. We have put money into that and, as I have said, we have taken a major step through the abolition of tuition fees for part-time students from lower-income backgrounds. We will continue to pursue those policies. Until there are equal opportunities for everyone in every corner of Scotland, irrespective of economic and social background, we shall not have genuine equality in society. That is the objective that we are pursuing, and we will not be diverted from it by side issues.

School Development

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If he will make a statement on the level of capital consent for school development which he plans to approve for rural north-east Scotland in the years 1999 to 2002. [49919]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced, in the comprehensive spending review, additional capital expenditure plans of £185 million for schools over the period 1999 to 2002. The distribution to individual authorities will be considered over the coming months.

Mr. Bruce: May I take it from that that the Government will be able to give a positive response to applications from Aberdeenshire council for approval for private finance initiative projects and new capital projects for schools in the area—for example, the PFI project involving Garioch academy, linked to Banff primary school, and the new primary school for Kintore? When nearly every secondary school in Aberdeenshire has temporary classrooms, a positive response is required. Will the Minister be able to give such a response in the near future?

Mr. Wilson: What the Minister, and the Government, can do is give a substantial additional amount of cash to Aberdeenshire council and every other local authority over the next few years so that they can make their own decisions within the relevant parameters.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Ellon academy, and I am aware of the problems there. I am also aware of the £200 million backlog in school maintenance that we inherited all over Scotland. When the allocations are made, that will be one avenue that each authority will be able to pursue in making its own capital investment decisions for education. The other, of course, is the PFI. Aberdeenshire, very properly, has presented proposals for both schools the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which will be considered alongside the other applications for


PFI projects that are coming in from all over Scotland. I am well aware of the needs of that part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but two avenues are available.

Mr. John Swinney: The Minister will know from correspondence that we have exchanged of my concern about the condition of one of the secondary schools in my constituency. I am especially concerned about the condition of Breadalbane academy in Aberfeldy, which could just about be described as the north-east of Scotland. The report carried out on the school's fabric by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools defined the fabric as good, but, having visited the school, I can assure the Minister that it is far from adequate for the needs of the growing population in the area. What consideration will he be able to give to the specific need to improve the quality of that and other schools in Perth and Kinross, where there is a rapidly expanding school population?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to learn that Breadalbane academy is situated in middle Scotland rather than north-east Scotland. The problems of the academy have been brought to my attention by the hon. Gentleman, and I can only give him the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). However, the sums of money available to education authorities over the next three years, not only through the most recent allocation but through windfall tax money announced last year, are beyond the dreams of what seemed possible a little more than a year ago. Every education authority will now be able to make funding decisions based on the allocations that will be issued shortly. I should think it very likely that the hon. Gentleman's local authority will give high priority to the undoubted needs of Breadalbane academy.

Petrol Stations

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the number of petrol stations serving rural communities of 3,000 or fewer which have closed in the last 12 months. [49920]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): We do not have precise figures, but the report "Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland" estimates a closure rate of petrol stations in rural Scotland of 3 per cent. a year over the past eight years.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that the road fuel tax regime put in place by the Government in the Budget will increase petrol and diesel prices next year by a staggering 25p a gallon? Will this not lead to further closures of petrol stations in the remote rural areas, to the loss of vitally needed jobs in the rural areas, to misery for those dependent on their car in rural areas and to an increase in freight costs in rural areas? In short, is it not only the Conservatives who can represent those in rural areas in Scotland or in the Cotswolds?

Mr. McLeish: That may represent a picture of rural England, but it does not reflect life in rural Scotland. Of course the Government are concerned about the sustainability of rural life. It is all right for the nationalists to make noises from a sedentary position, but the

important issue is that car dependency is very high in rural communities. It is not the Government's desire to undermine that in any particular way. There must be a network of rural petrol filling stations to serve local needs. Instead of the ideological position that has been proposed, we are trying to help in hard, practical terms.
Rate relief is available from April 1998 for small businesses, including petrol filling stations. There are derogations on petrol vapour recovery directives to help with capital investment. A new rural transport fund of £400,000 has been earmarked. Details will be announced soon of how we can help filling stations in rural areas. Local authorities and local enterprise companies can help small businesses in a variety of ways with tank testing or low interest loans.
All in all, a practical attempt is being made to help sustain rural life. That is advantageous to Scottish rural life. On Wednesday, in Scotland, we shall be outlining our White Paper on transport. Again, the importance of these issues will be recognised.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the grave disadvantage that is faced by petrol stations in rural areas, notwithstanding the sensible, practical measures to which he referred, is the price of petrol that they are forced to charge, which is uncompetitive and is leading to people having to travel further and further afield? Will the hon. Gentleman seek to persuade his Treasury colleagues that variation in petrol duty and value added tax, which is within the rules of the European Union, is a course which should be considered seriously?

Mr. McLeish: We rightly have consistent petrol duties being applied throughout the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to take at face value the problems that we see in rural areas and try to apply practical measures. It may be easy to offer solutions that relate to petrol duty, but, in practice, they would be very difficult to administer and would prove extraordinarily difficult throughout the country. That is why we are concentrating on practical measures. I think that that is the way forward. Our approach is to identify issues that we can influence and, as a Government, to be serious with people in rural areas and not pretend that we can do things that we cannot.

Economic Development (Borders)

Mr. Michael Moore: If he will make an official visit to the borders to discuss economic development in the region. [49921]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the borders, but has kept in close touch with recent developments. Those recent developments include my visit to the borders on 2 and 3 July to discuss economic development issues with, among others, the hon. Gentleman. During that visit, I announced a wide package of new measures, including an additional £1 million for Scottish Borders Enterprise.

Mr. Moore: I acknowledge the importance of the initiatives announced by the Minister on his recent visit to the borders. They are the beginning of an answer to the


area's difficulties. Does he acknowledge the infrastructure problems about which he heard, and the need to help local businesses to diversify, about which the Scottish Affairs Select Committee heard yesterday when it visited the borders? When will the south of Scotland convention meet? That was one of the initiatives that he announced on his visit.

Mr. Wilson: I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the arrangements that they helped to put in place for that visit. Everyone agreed that it was a positive response and the beginning of efforts to address the problems of the borders.
On the south of Scotland convention, the date that we propose—about which I should be happy to consult—is the end of September or the beginning of October. That would allow sufficient time for matters to develop after my visit, but not to drag on.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am glad that the Minister enjoyed his visit to Scotland. May I suggest that he should make as many visits north of the border as he can, because, thanks to the craven approach of his Government to appeasing Scottish nationalist ambitions, it will not be long before he needs a passport to travel there?

Mr. Wilson: I am inclined to suggest that, if white coats are manufactured in the borders, the hon. Gentleman's remarks might assist the textile industry there.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: We are all aware of the serious situation in the borders, but the Minister will also be aware that unemployment in Dumfries and Galloway is double that in the borders. Therefore, will he consider visiting Dumfries and Galloway? As he has given an extra £1 million to Scottish Borders Enterprise, will he consider making a similar allocation to Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise, which would put that money to good use?

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to be divisive, and that he would agree that there was a specific problem in the borders. Unemployment statistics do not tell us everything. We are witnessing in the borders the rapid deterioration of a key industry, and it was right for us to take the step that we took. Almost every one of my hon. Friends could make the same argument about some of the older industrial areas of Scotland having higher unemployment figures. What has been done in the borders is not at any other region's expense.
I shall be pleased to visit Dumfries and Galloway, and I hope to do so during the recess. The South of Scotland convention will be a useful forum—it is a one-off—to discuss on a wider basis the economic problems of the south of Scotland and to bring in the people from the other side of the border. That point was made and reinforced at the meeting in Hawick, because there is a movement of labour across the border. One cannot draw a line there, and the more people can come together to discuss the problems of the entire south of Scotland and the borders area, the better.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Jimmy Hood: What plans he has for further local government reform in Scotland. [49922]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Government have a far-reaching agenda for reform and modernisation in local government, including the policy of best value to deliver better council services, the new ethical framework to regulate standards, and the independent commission under Neil MacIntosh, which is undertaking a fundamental review of the management and structure of local government.

Mr. Hood: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his many innovative ideas for local government reform in Scotland, and suggest another: as a way of improving the democratic process in local government, will he consider setting up select committees of back-bench councillors to scrutinise the work of local government and to make it more transparent and more accountable, both in the political process and in the administrative role of local government?

Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and positive suggestion, which is squarely within the remit of the MacIntosh commission. One idea at which the commission is looking is whether Scottish local government should move to a more formal, Cabinet-style system rather than the committee system that is prevalent now. That would require a division between councillors' executive and representative functions along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. I shall draw the commission's attention to this exchange and to his suggestion.

Mrs. Ray Michie: As he seeks to reform local government, will the Minister also put in place proper measures to resolve something that has happened in my constituency? Last weekend, there was a massive landslide, which has closed the road from Kintyre, meaning that business and tourism cannot survive and people cannot get through. I hope that local government, in conjunction with the Scottish Office, can realign that road away from the rock-fall area.

Mr. Macdonald: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I appreciate the concern that the hon. Lady voices. My right hon. Friend has asked for a report on that incident and will look at it closely.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I know that my hon. Friend is carrying out some excellent work on the future reform of Scottish local government, but I should like to ask two specific questions. First, in that process of change, what consultation is taking place with local citizens? Secondly, in any future consideration about a new form of local government elections, will he undertake to ensure that a link is maintained between constituent and elected member within the local authority boundary?

Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the electoral system. That is one of the matters that will be borne in mind by those who reflect on that.
The independent commission carried out a full consultation during which it visited every local authority area. It not only talked to councillors and officials, but undertook public meetings at each visit, to which citizens could come along and make suggestions about the reform of local government.

Defence-related Employment

Mr. Michael Colvin: When he last met representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss defence-related jobs in Scotland. [49923]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I have regular meetings with representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues, which has included their approach to defence-related industries. My most recent meeting was on 2 June.

Mr. Colvin: What assessment has Scottish Enterprise made of the impact of the strategic defence review, which was announced recently, on the Scottish economy? Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the country as a whole, a third of Ministry of Defence jobs are in the civilian sector and that some 400,000 people work in our defence-related industries? As the Government have decided to slash the defence budget by nearly £1 billion and the Secretary of State for Defence is now looking for more than £500 million of savings through greater efficiency and a similar amount through smarter procurement, what is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the number of jobs that that will cost Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I recognise that it is in the hon. Gentleman's best interests to be a little gloomy about events—for a number of reasons, probably—but the strategic defence review was widely welcomed. It was certainly widely welcomed by the armed forces because it is centrally based on a strategic assessment of our defence needs.
As for Scotland, we have not had time to analyse the matter in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Scottish Enterprise has not been back to me with any views on that. I take the view that defence industries are extremely important in the Scottish context. I have a constituency interest in Yarrow, the frigate builders, for example; Scotland has big interests in electronics, with GEC at Groathill in Edinburgh; and there is the Rosyth dockyard. On the whole, Scotland appreciates the strategic drive behind the changes. There is probably some satisfaction in some of the decisions, and opportunities remain for the defence sector in Scotland.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is it not good for Scotland to participate in armed forces that are big hitters in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and have the capacity to play an important part in United Nations international operations? My right hon. Friend may be aware that another party represented in the House wants to take Scottish troops out of the British armed forces and leave us with an army of tartan conscripts. Will he confirm that the Government have much higher ambitions for Scottish service men and the Scottish defence industry?

Mr. Dewar: I will resist the temptation to say that the general could perhaps wear a tartan lum-hat as he led his troops.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there would be significant repercussions if we were to isolate ourselves by withdrawing from NATO. It is also true—I speak with some feeling because of the constituency interests that I mentioned—that, if Scottish defence contractors were unable to compete for defence orders for the British Army, or for the Army of what remained the United Kingdom with Scotland withdrawn, there would be a direct threat to employment prospects, which would be a serious and worrying matter for many of us.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following on from the strategic defence review, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the considerable sense of relief in the south-west highlands about the longer-term securing of the British underwater test and evaluation centre range at Kyle of Lochalsh for torpedo testing? It is the most significant employer in the area in terms of skilled employment and the prospects for keeping young people there, but yesterday's written answer to me, which was made after the SDR outcome, suggests that is difficult for the Ministry of Defence to make predictions for the longer term—beyond the next five years or so. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the Scottish Office liaises closely with the MOD about the future of the facility, given that it provides such an underpinning of the local economy?

Mr. Dewar: Of course I will look at that and bear it in mind. The important issue is that any SDR has to be conditioned by our defence requirements and the strategy that we want to follow in those terms, but we are all conscious of the dangers to jobs that can result. On the whole, I regard the solution as balanced and sensible, and one that we welcome strongly in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Legal Aid

Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent representations he has received on the impact of proposed changes in the legal aid system on Merseyside. [49902]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My hon. Friend will understand that our proposals have generated a great deal of interest. Unfortunately, letters and responses were not recorded by the geographical location of the sender and that information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I was grateful to him, however, for his letter, to which I replied in April this year.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will appreciate that a number of my constituents on Merseyside who have been involved in medical accidents are particularly concerned about medical negligence, and he will be aware that that is an area of specialist expertise in the legal profession. Can he assure me that, when my constituents need advice in this area, they will be able to obtain it from specialist lawyers who may not necessarily be the family law firm or the solicitors who did their conveyancing?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that medical negligence is a specialist area of law that requires


specialist lawyers. It is profoundly disturbing that, in 1996–97, the client received damages of more than £50 in only 17 per cent. of all completed legally aided medical negligence cases; that means that 83 per cent. of clients got nothing or next to nothing after what was, inevitably, a long period of worry and considerable difficulty. We cannot allow that to continue. Therefore, we have announced that, by January 1999, the Legal Aid Board will contract only with specialist medical negligence lawyers. The issues in these claims are simply too important to my hon. Friend's constituents, and to our society as a whole, to be entrusted to those who merely dabble in this kind of work.

Mr. John Burnett: The people of Merseyside would have been interested in the Minister's reply to the written question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on 16 July. The Minister rightly placed great emphasis on the advantages of franchising and contracting. To what extent will the general public or potential clients have available to them such information as the successful outcomes to cases by contracting or franchising firms?

Mr. Hoon: Certainly that is something which we shall be considering as we develop the franchising scheme and as we introduce legislation to allow us to contract with specialist lawyers, as I hope we will be able to do in due course, but it will be important for the public to know the qualifications and expertise of lawyers who do legally aided work.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—[Interruption.] I am almost transparent—referred to the written answer that the Minister gave last week at columns 278–79. Is not one of the problems with that written answer that a representative of a client in Merseyside would not be able to work out with any certainty the timetable for the future development of conditional fee agreements and the other legal aid reforms? Will the Minister tell us with greater precision the exact timetable for the introduction of extended conditional fee agreements and the other changes that he and his boss in the Lord Chancellor's Department have proposed for the legal aid system?

Mr. Hoon: Like the good lawyer he is, the hon. and learned Gentleman can argue any case that is put in front of him, especially when he has a brief. In the past, he has criticised us for failing to consult, and now, as we respond to the various representatives that we have received following consultation, he is criticising us yet again. I assure him that the Government will make a statement in the autumn setting out the precise timetable and the proposals on which we intend to legislate if that is necessary.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Andrew Robathan: When he next intends to visit Lutterworth magistrates court to discuss the work of magistrates courts. [49903]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have no immediate plans to visit Lutterworth magistrates court, not least because it will close at the end of next week. The decision to close the court was taken by Leicestershire magistrates courts committee following extensive local consultation, particularly with Leicestershire county council. It is perhaps significant that, as a result of that consultation, Leicestershire county council decided not to exercise its right of appeal against the closure. In the absence of an appeal, I have no opportunity to intervene.

Mr. Robathan: As the Minister so rightly said, Lutterworth magistrates court is closing at the end of next week. We have corresponded on this matter. Is he aware that local justice has been administered in Lutterworth for more than 500 years? Is he further aware that there is no reliable public transport between Lutterworth and Harborough or between Lutterworth and Leicester, which are the alternatives for court cases? Lutterworth is a bigger town than it has ever been, and it is still growing. Does the Minister believe in local justice being administered locally? Will he intervene at the eleventh hour—indeed, at one minute to midnight? He says that he has no powers, but he is the Minister, so who else can intervene if he cannot? The soon to be ennobled William Bach, who is a local resident in the Lutterworth area, has also made representations as a district councillor.

Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that I have no power to intervene under the legislation that governs the way in which magistrates courts and magistrates courts committees operate, which was introduced by the previous Administration and for which the hon. Gentleman voted. I am sorry to tell him that, even at the eleventh hour, I am not in a position to intervene in this matter.

Lockerbie

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many officials of his Department are involved in legal matters relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103. [49904]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): None.

Mr. Dalyell: There will be an Adjournment debate on this matter tonight, so I have no further questions.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, have there been any discussions between the Lord Chancellor's Department and Foreign Office officials about a trial in a third country? I ask that question particularly in the light of the report on the front page of The Guardian today.

Mr. Hoon: None that I am aware of.

Land Registry

Mr. David Watts: What steps the Land Registry is taking to provide on-line access for the results of searches for domestic and commercial conveyancing. [49905]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Land Registry, in liaison with other central and local government bodies and private sector organisations, is developing a national land information service which will enable solicitors and licensed conveyancers to access on-line the results of searches required in the conveyancing process. I was delighted to have had the opportunity to launch a pilot conveyancing system on 1 July in Bristol, using this technology, and enabling solicitors to access data from 12 public and private sector organisations. The Land Registry also provides a direct access service which allows practitioners to view computerised registers on their own office personal computers and carry out a range of related services.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What further action can he and the Government take to speed up the process? Does he believe that new technology can help to speed it up? At the end of the process, does he believe that there will be an end to gazumping in the sale of houses and businesses?

Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree that providing information electronically will speed up conveyancing and reduce the opportunities for gazumping. A consultation document entitled "Land Registration for the 21st Century" was recently published by a joint working group consisting of representatives of the Law Commission and the Land Registry. Views are invited on a wide range of proposals which will make dealings in land much simpler, quicker and cheaper. Underlying the proposals is the likely move to electronic conveyancing over the coming decade.

Lewes Crown Court

Mr. Norman Baker: What plans he has to ensure that those who would expect to use Lewes Crown court are not redirected elsewhere. [49907]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Normally, all cases committed to Lewes Crown court are tried at that court. However, to reduce waiting times for hearings, cases can sometimes be transferred to other Crown court centres. Before any transfer, the interests of everyone involved in the case are taken into account and any objections considered.

Mr. Baker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in 1997, approximately 10 per cent. of cases that normally would have been expected to be tried at Lewes were transferred elsewhere—to Croydon, Chichester and further afield? That represents a considerable inconvenience for those involved in the cases, and long journeys—some by public transport, and some not, despite the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that a higher percentage of cases are dealt with at Lewes to minimise the inconvenience that people are suffering?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. In 1997, 117 cases were transferred from Lewes, but, in each, benefits will have been provided to the many witnesses, victims and innocent defendants as a result of the cases being decided earlier than they would otherwise have

been. All parties involved are consulted and the interests of victims and witnesses are taken into account before any such decision is made. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that there have been no transfers from Lewes since February this year.

Woolf Report

Caroline Flint: What steps his Department is taking to consult on the costs rules to be operated in fast-track cases under the reforms of civil procedures set out in the Woolf report. [49908]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On 22 June, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper on a costs regime for the fast track entitled "Justice at the Right Price". The consultation paper seeks comments by 17 August.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that solicitors instructed by trade unions have provided an efficient and good service for trade union members at a modest cost in personal injury actions? Will he assure me that, in devising a system of costs for fast-track cases, he will take into account any potential detrimental effect of a fixed-costs regime being imposed on defendants before they have had a chance to look at their methods of operating systems to ensure that they comply with the rigours of the fast track?

Mr. Hoon: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I believe that the legal advice schemes provided by trade unions to their members are extremely effective. I would not wish to implement any new system that affected their operation or effectiveness. At the same time, we cannot ignore the deep-seated problems of high cost acting as a barrier to access to our courts. I assure my hon. Friend that changes will be made only when we are entirely confident that they will operate in the interests of the litigants and of society as a whole.

Conditional Fees

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he proposes to put before the House the regulations extending conditional fee agreements. [49909]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): A draft order was laid before the House on 16 July.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Minister for his reply. In principle, I am in favour of conditional fee agreements because they can provide increased access to justice in addition to that which is available today. Does he agree that, if conditional fee agreements are to be successful, there must be adequate insurance cover for that purpose? At the moment, it appears that there is little guidance available from the Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Will he provide guidance so that, when the conditional fee agreements come in—as I hope they will—there will be adequate insurance to ensure that they are successful?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right to say that conditional fees depend on


adequate and effective insurance cover. The Government have had a series of meetings with different insurance providers, and it is clear that a wide variety of products will be available to support conditional fee agreements. Inevitably, the industry is waiting to see the results of any change in the law that Parliament might approve. It is necessary that we go ahead, lay the order before Parliament and seek parliamentary approval. We are confident that insurance products will be available to support an extension of conditional fee agreements.

Legal Aid and Civil Justice White Paper

Mr. Howard Flight: When he expects the White Paper on modernising legal aid and civil justice to be published. [49910]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government

intend to publish in the autumn a comprehensive statement setting out their wide-ranging programme for reforming and modernising access to justice.

Mr. Flight: To what extent has that cost already been anticipated in last week's spending announcement by the Chancellor? Does the White Paper anticipate any difference in approach to legal aid between criminal and civil cases? Certainly in my experience, there is misuse of civil legal aid.

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, in publishing our expenditure proposals for the next three years, the Government have taken fully into account the need to reform the system of legal aid, which has been failing everyone. The system is out of control. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in a continuing trend, in 1997–98 the Legal Aid Board paid some 30,000 fewer bills, but their cost was some £28 million greater. Once again, the taxpayer has been paying more but getting less.

Criminal Justice

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the comprehensive spending review and the criminal justice system.
May I open by expressing my gratitude to the Liberal Democrats for accommodating this statement on their Opposition day, and say that I am making it not least in response to representations from them?
In our election manifesto, we promised to reform the criminal justice system, to tackle youth crime and to reduce levels of crime and disorder. Therefore, I greatly welcome the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which has targeted resources where they are most needed to deliver those manifesto commitments. The Home Office will receive an additional £3 billion over the next three years. That money will be invested in modernisation and reform to help us to build the safer, fairer society to which we are committed. Across Government, the comprehensive spending review represents an end to short-term thinking and should allow public services to plan with greater confidence over a longer period.
We need first to improve the performance and management of the criminal justice system overall. We have to provide clear, strategic direction to ensure that the different parts of the system work efficiently and coherently together. Therefore, for the first time, the Government have agreed new over-arching aims for the criminal justice system. They are to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and their social and economic costs; to dispense justice fairly and efficiently; and to promote confidence in the rule of law. Those aims will drive Government policy for the criminal justice system as a whole.
To modernise the services, we shall be establishing joint, strategic planning; improving and integrating services' information technology; and aligning boundaries more closely. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a more detailed statement about those plans.
To oversee those structures, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a new ministerial group, which will include my right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I think that the whole House acknowledges that criminal justice agencies cannot by themselves deliver the safer society that we all want. If we are to make an effective attack on crime and its causes, we need to work in partnership right across Government and beyond. The Crime and Disorder Bill therefore provides for statutory partnerships to analyse local crime problems and then draw up strategies to reduce crime and disorder at a local level.
The new anti-social behaviour order will tackle the problem of criminal anti-social neighbours, who can make life a misery for those who are affected by them. The Crime and Disorder Bill also radically reforms the youth justice system. It establishes new multi-agency youth offending teams, a new police final warning scheme and new court orders. Those will ensure that young offenders make reparation to victims or to the community, and that their parents take greater responsibility for their offending behaviour.
A new national Youth Justice Board is to be established. It will administer a development fund for local programmes, including bail supervision and mentoring. The board will set standards for the youth justice system as a whole.
We will take forward a programme of work to reform the quality and delivery of secure accommodation for sentenced and remanded juveniles. In the short term, that includes work that the Prison Service has in hand to improve the care and quality of regimes for young people who are held in young offender institutions. In the longer term, we aim to provide for greater coherency and efficiency in the delivery of secure accommodation through extending the role of the new Youth Justice Board to include commissioning and purchasing of places. Additional resources are being made available for new secure facilities and to improve the constructive regimes for juveniles when our new detention and training orders come into force next year.
As part of those changes, we will deliver our pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. When we came to office, we found that, on average, it took 142 days from arrest to sentence—more than 20 weeks or five months, a wholly unacceptable delay. The Lord Chancellor and I have worked hard to persuade the youth courts to introduce fast-track schemes. More than 160 schemes have so far been introduced or are planned; compare that with the fact that just 12 were extant when we took office. We shall use some additional resources to ensure that that pledge is fully delivered within the next two to three years.
In our manifesto, we said that we would be tough on crime and on its causes. Individuals must take responsibility for their criminal behaviour, but we also have to recognise that crime breeds where there is family breakdown and social exclusion. For many years, Governments have concentrated too much on the effects of crime, to the detriment of its causes, but we can make a long-term impact on crime and disorder only by concentrating on both crime and its causes.
Since the 1920s, the underlying rate of crime has risen by about 5 per cent. a year. There have been two periods when it has fallen: one from 1948 to 1953; the other since 1992. The first proved short-lived; the danger is that the second may, too. Increases in crime have, to many, appeared inexorable. "There is nothing you can do," is the claim, "it is a fact of life." The assumption has been that "nothing works"—that nothing could be done to reverse the long-term rise in crime. Indeed, that was the dismal conclusion of Governments both in the 1970s and 1980s. I disagree, and I hope that that disagreement is shared by hon. Members across the House.
Therefore, as part of the comprehensive spending review, I asked the research and statistics department of the Home Office to undertake a thorough investigation of all available national and international evidence to identify "what works" to reduce crime and disorder. Its conclusions are included in a report entitled "Reducing offending", which I am publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
That report provides concrete research evidence that we can make a difference. It shows that investing resources where it matters can have long-term benefits in reducing offending. It also shows that the most cost-effective strategy for reducing crime has three strands:


the promotion of a less criminal society by preventing young people from becoming criminals and by investing in measures that reduce the opportunity for crime; the prevention of crime in the community by acting on the social conditions that sustain crime and by effective policing; and using sentencing policy effectively to change the behaviour of offenders, including, importantly, drug users.
Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Government will invest £250 million over the next three years on a crime reduction strategy that draws on the findings of that research. This will be the first time that a centrally co-ordinated programme of such magnitude, based on comprehensive research evidence and with in-built evaluation, has been put in place anywhere in the world. As a result, we should be able to make a significant contribution to reducing crime and the number of victims.
That programme will tackle the social causes of crime through long-term investment in children, families and schools. We will target crime prevention measures on crime hotspots and reduce the opportunities for crime. There will be new investment to tackle burglary. We will help the police to target their efforts to reduce the pattern of repeat attacks on the same victims. Where prevention has failed, the prison and probation services will work with offenders to help to cut reoffending rates.
Some of those initiatives, for example those with young children and families, will take up to 10 years to make an impact on crime, but even those programmes will have an earlier impact on the factors that predispose people to later criminality. However, some measures will work quickly—for example, burglary prevention makes a speedy and tangible improvement to people's lives, as the safer cities programme of the previous Administration very well illustrated.
As well as proposals to tackle crime and its causes, the Government will pay more attention to the needs of victims and witnesses, especially those who are vulnerable or intimidated. We will provide extra resources to improve services in the magistrates courts and for the support of victims. The strategy I have described should do much to lessen the impact of crime and the misery it causes.
The comprehensive spending review for the Home Office also makes substantial additional provision for the police, prison and probation services. Currently, the police spend £7 billion a year. We will allocate an extra £1.24 billion over the next three years, to add to that £7 billion. However, this has to be accompanied by improved efficiency, with the savings recycled into front-line policing priorities. The police settlement will therefore include targets for efficiency improvements of 2 per cent. a year. Part of the additional funding for the second and third years will be dependent on the police achieving those targets.
For the Prison Service, the settlement provides an additional £660 million over the next three years. Some of that money will be used for additional prison capacity to meet the pressure of rising numbers of prisoners and to clear the backlog of urgent repair and maintenance. However, prisons will fully protect the public only if they not only incarcerate prisoners securely during their sentence, but reduce reoffending on release of those

prisoners. Therefore, we are providing for a significant increase in purposeful activity within prisons in the next three years. There will be more sex offender treatment programmes; extensions of the welfare-to-work pilots in prisons; improvements in education for juveniles and adults; and increases in the number of probation officers providing through-care support.
To meet part of the costs of those initiatives, I am looking to the Prison Service to implement a new efficiency strategy. Every pound saved will go back into the Prison Service to help fund more programmes to reduce reoffending.
For the probation service, there will be an additional £18 million of grant next year instead of the £6 million cut planned by the previous Administration. In total, the settlement gives an extra £127 million to the probation service over the three years. That will enable the service to take up important new responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as extended supervision of sex offenders and involvement in the new youth offending teams.
The probation service, too, will be required to make further improvements in efficiency. That drive will be reinforced by improved joint working between the prison and probation services. We will shortly be publishing a consultation document on our proposals for this improved collaboration between those two important services.
Taken together, the measures that I have announced today will help to bind and strengthen our communities; build a safe, just and tolerant society; and should make Britain a better place in which to live. I commend them to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: We welcome the publication of the Home Office research study, "Reducing offending". Work on that started three years ago, under the Conservative Government. Some of the proposals, such as that on better parenting, are entirely sensible.
We should take all opportunities to reduce and prevent crime. However, as the Home Secretary acknowledged, some of the proposed schemes will not produce results for many years to come. Indeed, we are interested to note that the early pledge at the general election to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders has now become a pledge
within the next two to three years.
Against a background where the public want action now, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of brief questions. First, is not it a fact that any strategy for fighting crime depends on strong professional services—a strong probation service, a strong Prison Service and, above all, a strong police service?
Does the Home Secretary therefore stand by the figures in last week's press release from his Department, which show that, for police, there will be only a 0.1 per cent. real-terms spending increase in the first year, 0.3 per cent. in the second year and 1.4 per cent. in the third year? Does he acknowledge that that average of 0.6 per cent. compares very badly with an average annual real-terms increase of 3.4 per cent. over the 18 years of the Conservative Government, and that those increases were additional to any efficiency savings?
The Home Secretary talked about a cash increase for police of £1.2 billion over the next three years. Does he agree that the Government will therefore spend on police


£2.6 billion in cash over the whole five-year period 1997–2002? Does he realise that, in the five years 1992–97, the previous Government spent on police almost £4.5 billion extra in cash, again underlining our commitment to the service?
Additionally—using those same cash figures—will the Home Secretary tell the House what cash resources it is planned to devote to political asylum seekers, for whom he has now taken on responsibility? All hon. Members will want to know what the cash cost of those plans will be over the period.
On the vital question of what the money will buy, will the Home Secretary confirm that, in the 18 years of Conservative Governments, police strength increased by over 15,000—or by 14 per cent? Does he realise that many United Kingdom police forces now stand on the verge of reductions in strength? Does he agree that one of the forces facing a fall in manpower is the Metropolitan police, where he still acts as the police authority? Rather than more men and women on the beat, we now face the prospect of fewer on the beat. May I personally tell the Home Secretary that they will not be sensibly replaced by red-coated local authority street patrols?
Is it not true that, however the sums are done or whatever spin is put on the story, the police are not being accorded the same priority as they were by the previous Government? In the next year, that will inevitably harm the public and, above all, harm the war against crime in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for publication of the research, some of which, as I acknowledged, is based on the experience of the previous Administration—including the safer cities programme, which we greatly welcomed at the time and which had an important impact. However—on a small detail—the research was commissioned by me as part of the comprehensive spending review and could not have been commissioned by the previous Administration. The previous Administration cut funding for the research and statistics department from £2 million to £800,000—a 60 per cent. cut—so little did they subscribe to the idea of research.
I should now deal with the central charge made by the shadow Home Secretary—the issue of resources to police. However, I should first say that he has exposed further profound confusion—to put it at its best—at the heart of the Conservative leadership. The criticism of the Government's programme offered by each Opposition spokesman shadowing a spending Department has been that more, not less, money should be spent.

Sir Norman Fowler: More police.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says, "More police." The shadow spokesman on schools says, "More teachers", and the shadow Health Secretary says, "More nurses". It is ratcheting up and up. The right hon. Gentleman has just called for an extra £2 billion. Shadow Ministers call for more spending on individual services, but less spending on services overall. The public will not be conned by such a trick. Indeed, only a week ago, the shadow Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that his

overall criticism of the comprehensive spending review was that we could not control public spending and that there ought to be less public spending rather than more.

Sir Norman Fowler: Get on with it.

Mr. Straw: I will get on with it; I will make the charge against the right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members of speaking in tongues, of double talk, of saying one thing one day and another the next.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked me about resources devoted to asylum seekers. He made that error this morning, which I sought to correct. I am only sorry that he did not listen to my correction, which was broadcast on "Today" on Radio 4—shortly after the thought for the day. He was assuming that the money that will be transferred from other Departments to cover support for asylum seekers is included in the £3 billion. That may have been a sleight of hand committed by an Administration of whom he was an adornment, but it is not one to which I am committed. I intend to publish a White Paper on the immigration and asylum system next week, when full details will be disclosed to the House.
The right hon. Member asked me about police strength. Again, he makes an error. He asserted that the amounts of money going into the police had risen inexorably under the previous Administration and that that had therefore led to an inexorable rise in police numbers. He fails to recognise that police numbers fell under the Conservative Administration from 1992. Indeed, despite the previous Administration committing themselves to spending for an extra 5,000 officers, figures for 1 March 1998, the last period for which the previous Administration set the Budget, showed an overall fall in numbers of 200. That included a fall in the Metropolitan police area of 437.
The right hon. Member should take on board the point about efficiency of the police service. Every other public service—not least when he was a Secretary of State—had to undergo efficiency improvements. On the whole, they benefited from doing more for less.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, has said that there is a huge variation in the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service and that it is not related to resources. The challenge for us all is to ensure that, from such an important public service as the police, we get the most effective and efficient results, we are able to draw on best practice, and forces improve their efficiency—as the PAC recommended only last week in a very important report on police sickness, and as the Audit Commission recommended.
Such improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, taken together with the £250 million that we are investing in crime reduction strategies, will make the job of the police in tackling crime and disorder far more effective than it was under the Government of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Mr. Chris Mullin: May I welcome the introduction of long-term thinking into the management of the criminal justice system? I particularly welcome the extra resources that are going into the probation service, and I endorse the Home Secretary's point that we must require that the police make better use of existing resources before we consider providing further


resources. May I put to him that, in the long term, the best way to reduce offending, particularly among juveniles, is to divert vulnerable juveniles who have not yet offended into constructive activity, rather than having to spend a great deal of money locking some of them up later on when it has all gone wrong?
Although I appreciate that that is a long-term matter and that other Departments will be responsible for part of the strategy as well as his own, that must be the long-term overall aim in reducing juvenile offending.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement. He speaks from a position of great authority as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—[HON MEMBERS: "Home Affairs Committee."] I am sorry, the Chairman of the PAC is on my mind, given that he said:
There is enormous variation in the performance of police forces".
My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and he was a member of the Committee when it produced an important report recommending regulation of the private security industry. At the Association of Chief Police Officers conference last week, Ian Blair, the chief constable of Surrey, and I talked about the importance of regulating the private security industry to prevent the scandal tolerated by the Opposition of crooks being able to employ other crooks to pursue criminal activities.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement, particularly his announcement of research and his confirmation that we are moving away from the "nothing works" agenda. I share his view that the Government can and should do far more to reduce offending and to seek rehabilitation of offenders. We welcome the joint aims for the various criminal justice departments, and we look forward to seeing them all work together in perfect harmony.
Does the Home Secretary agree that the spending that he has announced is simply the bare necessities to keep the prison, probation and police services going? Does he agree that the probation service, which lost 10 per cent. of its staff between 1994 and 1997, has been thrown a lifeline, confirming our view that, under the plans of the previous Government, it would have been unable to fulfil its statutory duties? Does he agree that the police funding settlement will stem the decline in police numbers, which are 150 down since Labour took power, and 700 down since 1992? While the Home Secretary has no direct responsibility for police numbers, will he hazard a guess at whether his settlement will lead to an increase or a further fall?
Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the Prison Service budget will genuinely be spent on better regimes that lead to rehabilitation? What assessment has he made of the increases in prison numbers, which seem likely to soak up money? Will he confirm that police efficiency savings will not be to the detriment of forces that have good sickness and retirement records? If efficiency measures are to be based on sickness and retirement, forces that have appalling records should not

get extra cash merely because they bring the figures down to normal while those with good records miss out on extra funding.

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement's overall purpose, and I thank his right hon. and hon. Friends for accommodating me while I make the statement.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the new joint aims and our new machinery might achieve perfect harmony. I do not make that claim, but they will produce better co-ordination than exists now. I do not accept that the settlement provides merely the "bare necessities" to keep the services going, but I note that the hon. Gentleman's words run contrary to assertions from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
The probation service's resources have been stripped bare despite an increased work load. A 20 per cent. increase in efficiency has been extracted from the service over the past few years, but it faced a further £8 million cut which would have been impossible to achieve.
The service will still be required to produce efficiencies. We seek—as, to their credit, the previous Government did with education, although they seem unwilling to learn the lesson for criminal justice—to compare the best practice of one force or service with that of another. Then we can say that those forces or services that are lagging behind can follow the best examples. In the police, prison and probation services, some institutions are doing far better on fewer resources. We should learn from that, so that we can put money into helping to reduce offending.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to guess whether the settlement would lead to a reduction in the decline in police numbers that occurred under the previous Administration. I will not make such a guess. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which was introduced by the previous Government, but which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield seems to have forgotten, the Home Secretary has no power to set the establishment of the police service. It is a matter for chief constables and police authorities.
As I have said, part of the Prison Service's increase of £660 million will be used to pay for increased prison numbers. I can make available details of the projections for the next four years. We are providing an additional 2,500 places in this financial year.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made an important point about sickness and retirement. He suggested that we should seek to modify how the police grant operates so that it rewards the efficient and discriminates against the inefficient. We are seeking to do that. It remains to be seen whether we can, but it is certainly my intention.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents look forward to seeing clear results from his very welcome statement, given the disturbing amount of crime committed by youths, young people and even children in my constituency, including attacks on elderly people in their homes and in the streets? For example, a woman pensioner was attacked by two 13-year-old girls, a 12-year-old boy and a 10-year-old boy who hit her across the back with a piece of wood and on the head with half


a brick. Too many such events occur in my constituency. It is no accident that the area concerned is one of the most deprived in my constituency.
We look forward not only to the welcome action to deal with the causes of crime, but, where appropriate, to more punishment, more charges, more charges in place of cautions and to the bringing home to young people, children and their parents that such anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated by a Labour Government.

Mr. Straw: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend those undertakings. I am grateful for his welcome. One of the extraordinary things about the previous Administration—I am sorry that the Conservatives did not give the statement a full-hearted welcome—was that they were there for 18 years, but allowed the youth justice system to fall into thorough decay. The result was spree offenders offending 30, 40, 50 or, as in Newark, 80 times without being put in secure accommodation, and youngsters being cautioned, cautioned and cautioned again. I am glad that the Opposition now support anti-social behaviour orders. I wish only that they had supported them when we were in opposition and put them forward on a housing Bill. The orders would have been in place to save families from the terrible ravages that they have suffered in recent years.
We intend to introduce a thorough-going reform of the youth justice system, with a clear hierarchy of punishments. We are abandoning the use of endless cautions. There will be a reprimand, a final warning and then clear charges. If punishment in the community does not work, youngsters will be put in custody. Another change that we are introducing is that we are giving the courts the power to remand youngsters in custody, rather than leaving it to directors of social services.

Mr. John Hayes: I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that if he were to ask one of my constituents what they would like for a luxury, whether or not they were on a desert island, they would probably ask for a bobby on the beat, something which, sadly, has become a luxury because of Labour's cuts—[Interruption.]—Labour's savage cuts in Lincolnshire's police budget last year. Will he answer the question that he was asked before: how much money has been transferred to deal with asylum seekers?

Mr. Straw: This is a statement about criminal justice. I will make a statement to the House about asylum and immigration next week, but I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks: £350 million in 1999–2000; £300 million in 2000–01; and £250 million in 2001–02. As we are transferring costs from other Departments—some of the sums are in social services and housing budgets—these are provisional figures at present. We are doing what the previous Administration should have done: ending the chaotic system of support for asylum seekers.
As to Lincolnshire's budget, I can only repeat what the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), told the chief constable, Mr. Childs, when he met him recently. Given the recent history of Lincolnshire constabulary, they have a great deal of making up to do in terms of efficiency before they come to us with a begging bowl.

Mr. David Lepper: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the concern expressed

by many of my constituents last year following the release from prison of Robert Oliver and the additional burdens that his release placed on the local probation service, the police and social services. Will my right hon. Friend join me in placing on record thanks for the sensitive way in which those agencies dealt with that situation? Will he also inform the House how, in light of the lessons learned from that and similar cases, that experience has been brought to bear in making resources available to the probation service and other relevant agencies to provide for the future extended supervision of sex offenders following their release from prison?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I pay tribute to all those involved in the probation service, police service, social services and the Prison Service for the sensitive way in which they have dealt with those issues. I put on the record my appreciation of the fact that those difficulties are recognised across the Chamber. I applaud the way in which the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and my hon. Friend and many others have dealt with such cases in their areas.
As for resources, as I said in my statement, we are allocating an extra £127 million to the probation service. Part of that sum will be used for the early implementation of the sex offender orders. Those orders will attach to sex offenders who were sentenced before 1991 and who presently have no conditions attached to their release, in order to ensure better protection for the public.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am very glad that the Home Secretary referred to the chief constable of Surrey, Mr. Ian Blair. He is an outstanding chief constable, but he is wrestling with the problem of taking a savage cut in the provision of resources to the Surrey police last year. Surrey has the most successful record in crime prevention in the country, which is founded on the provision of policing that is largely community based. It will be undermined if there are further cuts in the funding for Surrey's police. Can the Home Secretary offer any hope today to my constituents and to the chief constable of Surrey?

Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the chief constable of Surrey, who is one of many very impressive chief constables. The savage cut to Surrey's budget last year was a Tory cut. [Interruption.] Well, it was. The budget for 1997–98 was set by the previous Administration and we came to office on 1 May, one month into the financial year. [Interruption.] It is true. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is gaping, as though he fails to recognise the date of the general election. It may have passed him by: he was one of the few Tories for whom it was not wholly traumatic because he won his seat. The 1997–98 financial year came into force on 1 April 1997 and we took office on 1 May, a full 30 days later.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to reducing crime and, particularly, his emphasis on crime prevention? Are any of his initiatives aimed at getting an increasingly young population out of prostitution? Given that many


young people go into prostitution in order to fund a drug habit, what initiatives does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce to help drug users kick the habit?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises a serious problem. The first point, on which there will be agreement on both sides of the House, is that we should treat child prostitutes, not as criminals, but as victims of serious and unpleasant criminals; and that only in exceptional circumstances, when they are near adulthood, should they be treated as criminals. My hon. Friend is probably aware that a great deal of effort has been made by the Government and the police to develop ways to deal much more effectively with the problem of child prostitution: for example, West Midlands police carried out pioneering work in the Wolverhampton area. Some of the money of which I have spoken today will be available for dealing with that problem.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, who leads for the Government on drug treatment and overall drugs policy, will be making a statement about the additional resources that we are allocating to be specifically targeted on the major drug problem that this country faces.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House will have noted the Home Secretary's recognition of the fall in recorded crime achieved since 1992 and welcomed his objective of sustaining the Conservative Government's record in that respect. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in my county of Cambridgeshire, the increase in the number of police in recent years has been counted as a significant factor in achieving a fall in recorded crime? Notwithstanding that he cannot set establishment figures, will he say whether he regards his statement as consistent with an increase or a decrease in police numbers, and on what assumptions does he base that view? Given the importance, especially in rural areas, of visible policing—the bobbies on the beat to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred—will he say why he has removed visible policing as a key objective for police forces?

Mr. Straw: As I said, the previous Government learned a hard lesson. Under legislation that they brought before the House and passed, the setting of police numbers was made a matter for police authorities and chief constables alone. The previous Government said that they were providing additional money to pay for more officers—the number varied according to the tune: sometimes it was 5,000 more officers; sometimes it was 2,000—but the reality was that, by the end of the 1992 Government, 200 fewer officers were available. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talks about the previous period, and I want to see more officers wherever possible, but, if we are to have a serious debate about the relationship between the number of police officers and the rise in crime, we must recognise that, during the 1980s, when there was a significant increase in the number of police officers—although not as significant as the 2,000 a year which the Labour Government put in place between 1974 and 1979; it was only 800 a year under the Conservatives—crime rose very much faster.
It is a matter of interest—I put it no more strongly than that—that, during the period when the number of police officers levelled out, crime fell. There are interesting comparisons—[Interruption.] Conservatives Members seek, and sought when they were in government, efficiency improvements in other public services, but they close their eyes to any application of research or science in this area. They should look at the evidence of the Audit Commission, which they established. It looked at the difference in performance between Surrey and Kent constabularies, which cover similar areas, and revealed that, over a certain period, Kent constabulary did significantly better than Surrey constabulary, even though it had lower resources. That is the sort of thing which ought to be taken on board.

Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people welcome his commitment of extra resources for vulnerable witnesses? Last night in the House, a number of hon. Members attended a meeting of Voice, an all-party group for people with learning difficulties, and heard of some of the harrowing experiences of people with learning difficulties who have been victims of crime. Their statements were quite horrific and upsetting. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that some of the money being spent on supporting vulnerable witnesses will be used for training of court staff and judges and for examining procedures, so that such people are dealt with sympathetically and to ensure true justice?

Mr. Straw: I give my hon. Friend that assurance and draw her attention to the consultative document on the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, which I published about eight weeks ago. It makes many improvements, both in terms of changes to the criminal law and criminal procedure, especially in respect of cross-examination, and in the sort of support with which victims and witnesses ought to be better provided, both in court and outside.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister was crowing about concessions that he had wrung out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of hypothecation. Has the Home Secretary been equally successful? If so, does that mean that the police will be able to reinvest the fines and penalties that come from speed cameras in more speed cameras?

Mr. Straw: As "Reducing offending" makes clear, changes are being made in the treatment of income from such fines and charges. A significant change has been brought about—a change, that is, from the extraordinarily dogmatic policy followed by the last Administration. I hope to make an announcement in due course, as does my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose responsibility this is.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will these measures augment or diminish the stratagem so publicly imported from the United States—the much-vaunted zero tolerance programme?

Mr. Straw: Zero tolerance is a matter for individual police forces. Interestingly, "Reducing offending"—


a copy of which is in the Vote Office—discusses the issue, and what the research suggests. It says that there is
moderately strong evidence that it can reduce serious crime in the short term",
but that there are
large question marks over the ability of the police to distinguish between firm and harsh policing styles".
It adds that
zero-tolerance may offer an attractive short term reduction in crime, but…it must also be evaluated against its long term effects on those arrested, and the communities from which they come.
"Zero tolerance" is a phrase which is used differently in different contexts—

Sir Norman Fowler: Including by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: Of course. It is not a particularly scientific term, and I am not sure whether "Reducing offending" uses it in the context in which I would use it. What I am clear about—and the evidence supports this—is that effective police action against small crimes can stop large-scale crime developing. The research evidence for that is striking. It shows—I am happy to concede that the research was carried out under the last Administration—that there is a four times greater chance of people becoming victims of serious crimes of violence in areas of incivility where small crimes are ignored, than in areas of civility.

Mr. Edward Leigh: For the avoidance of doubt, the grant settlement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was the settlement agreed after the general election, for the coming year.
If the record of Lincolnshire police is so wanting, why did the chief inspector of constabulary take particular care to single out for praise Lincolnshire's record in terms of efficiency gains?

Mr. Straw: I should point out that the baseline on which we are working for the current financial year was established by the previous Administration.

Mr. Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman altered it.

Mr. Straw: Yes, I altered it—to provide additional police resources that the last Administration would not have provided.

Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important deterrent to crime is not the number of people in prison, but what they do when they are in prison? His statement that every pound saved will go back into education and probation will be enormously welcome in the probation service.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the second most important way of preventing crime is stopping teenagers from getting into trouble in the first place? In that context, his £250 million crime reduction strategy will be a great relief. Can he tell us anything about the mentoring of teenagers in trouble, a scheme pioneered by Crime Concern and the Dalston youth project and, in the United

States, by Big Brothers and Sisters? Big Brothers and Sisters has set up a branch in my constituency, which hopes to launch its operations soon.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The kind of regime that prisoners follow is crucially important; otherwise, to quote David—now Lord—Waddington, prison can end up by making bad people worse. My first responsibility is to ensure that there are sufficient places in prisons to meet the demands of the courts, which are entirely independent; but I must then ensure that the regimes are as constructive as possible. That applies not only to education, but to other activities.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that catching teenagers before they get into serious trouble is the crucial challenge. It is astonishing how negligent the last Administration were in simply ignoring the whole issue of the youth justice system.
I applaud the provision of mentoring schemes. I have seen the one at Dalston, but not the one in my hon. Friend's constituency. We are planning that the national Youth Justice Board should itself sponsor many more mentoring schemes than are currently under way.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I welcome particularly the Home Secretary's comments on work for preventing criminality, which is set out in chapter 2 of "Reducing offending"? In that context, may I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further about the resources that will be allocated to deal with that work? When I raised the matter with him in the House a year ago, it was pointed out that the matter fell rather outside the Home Office's remit. Are we to take it, therefore, that the remit has been changed?
How much of the £250 million will go to working with parents with quite small children to prevent the growth of delinquency, or will another Government Department be doing that? What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give me and the House on the proportion of the £250 million that will be going to that type of work rather than to issues raised by many hon. Members relating to older offenders or delinquents?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gives. I cannot give him a precise answer today on the amount that will be allocated to specific projects on parenting because we have only just made the allocation, which will come into force from 1 April next year. I will ensure that he is provided with that information as soon as it becomes available to us and can be made public.
The £250 million represents a change in the way in which the Government operate. Quite a substantial proportion of it will be "spent" by other Government Departments. As we learned, not least from the safer cities project, if we want to cut crime we do it by ensuring that effort is made not by one Government Department or one local authority department but across a number of Departments. Quite a number of the programmes that we plan to sponsor will be education based and some will be social services based. Others will be sponsored, for example, by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions because they are to do with the built environment. We are aiming to ensure, and we will ensure, that these programmes are properly co-ordinated,


are funded centrally and, critically, are evaluated, so we do not end up in a situation in which we have found ourselves too often in the past under Governments of both parties, where good work is done, is then forgotten and then has to be reinvented.

Ms Beverley Hughes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the measures that he has announced, but particularly on the research, which is long overdue, and on the extra resources for the probation service, especially as, during the last three years of the previous Government, expenditure on the probation service was cut by about 25 per cent? During that period, the only contribution to criminal justice policy was the slogan "Prison works", with all the consequences of which we are aware.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that some resources are invested in improving the national standards achieved by probation services and in developing much more effective and rigorous alternatives to custody in which the police and sentencers can have confidence?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome of the statement. Some of the resources should be devoted to improving national standards, although, to make a point that I have almost laboured, I draw attention to the fact that some probation services are already delivering a level of national standards within existing resources while others, which may be getting more resources, are doing less well.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the need for rigorous alternatives to custody that have the confidence of the police and sentencers. I know that an inquiry is under way by the Home Affairs Committee on this issue, and we look forward to its results. In the Crime and Disorder Bill, there is provision for a drug treatment and testing order, with mandatory and random drug testing. That is an example of the rigorous community punishment that we wish to see.

Mr. Alan Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend share the concerns expressed in the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the Metropolitan police? The Committee found that, on a typical day such as today, 1,500 officers will be on sick leave, which means the loss of about 400,000 days each year at a cost to the taxpayer of £122 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be scope for savings there so that we can secure added resources for front-line services?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I do. I am grateful to the Public Accounts Committee for its report, which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis takes seriously. It makes the important point that, through better

management by police services, we can ensure that there are more front-line officers available, within existing budgets.

Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on dealing with the fear of crime. What is his response to the many representations made by pensioner groups on the matter, in particular Pensioners Voice in my constituency? What steps might the Government take to deal with the specific concerns of pensioners, who are often kept virtual prisoners in their homes by the fear of what they will find outside their front door?

Mr. Straw: The research looked at a range of good initiatives across the country. I saw a scheme today in Merton, in south London, where the provision of alarms that are worn around the neck by the elderly has transformed the quality of life of people on an estate. I spoke to one of the women who have led the scheme. She said that people now feel safer. I commend the work of the Metropolitan police in that area in helping to get the scheme together. By the investment of a relatively small sum, the quality of life of people there has been transformed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must make progress on the business before us.

Seed Trials

Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Government for a statement on today's Court of Appeal decision, which ruled that the Government have acted unlawfully in allowing a genetic maize trial in Devon to go ahead? The Government admitted in court that they had acted unlawfully in dispensing with statutory legal requirements, which the judges called
a most remarkable and, indeed, regrettable statement".
The implication is that the Government will have to reassess the entire seed list process, affecting up to 163 genetically engineered seed trials across the United Kingdom. It is not possible for the Government to do nothing. They must do something in the light of the court ruling. Given the importance of the matter and its environmental sensitivity, have the Government asked to make a statement? If not, they should have done so.

Madam Speaker: No. Had there been a statement, all hon. Members would have known about it before 1 o'clock today. It would have been on the annunciator. The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not contain the germ of a point of order.

Remission of Third World Debt (Jubilee 2000)

Mr. William Cash: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the remission of debt owed by the poorest developing countries by the year 2000.
On 16 May, 70,000 people formed a human chain around the venue for the G8 summit of leading nations in Birmingham, calling for the substantial remission of the unpayable debts of many third-world countries by the end of the year 2000. I was among them, and I spoke as chairman of the all-party group for the Jubilee 2000 coalition, which has 110 members and is almost certainly the largest all-party group in the House.
Also present were other hon. Members from both sides of the House, and many of our noble colleagues in the other place. Members of these Houses were not the focus of attention that day; we simply took our place among the people. There was one exception, when a parliamentarian was mistaken for someone of somewhat exalted status. As the noble Lord Redesdale accompanied Baroness Shirley Williams to the event, he was asked whether he was a member of special branch.
Progress was made on the debt issue at the Birmingham summit. It is thanks to this Government, building on the approach of the previous Government, that such progress was made. There was a new commitment to help post-conflict countries. There was also, for the first time, a declaration of the year 2000 as a target for action on debt. However, we understand that the less enthusiastic members of the G8 successfully blocked more substantial progress. Although we welcome the steps that were taken, there was inevitable disappointment that more was not achieved. The Prime Minister acknowledged to the House the following week that he would have wished to go further.
However, the impact of the human chain was enormous, with coverage in the world's media from The Washington Post to The Nation in Thailand. As Newsweek observed,
this moral cause has proved itself the people's policy".
The Daily Telegraph commented:
The approaching millennium does offer the group of leading industrialised countries, all but one of which has a long Christian tradition, the chance of making a dramatic and generous move toward lifting the burden of debt. At Birmingham that opportunity was sadly missed.
Meeting Jubilee 2000's challenge would be generous. However, what those 70,000 people demonstrated was not just the compassion that many of us share for less fortunate individuals in the poorest parts of the world, but the innate common sense that ordinary people show in matters that politicians and officials like to imagine are terribly difficult to understand.
Ordinary people understand debt. They are familiar with mortgages, student loans, credit card limits and negative equity. They realise that, if an individual gets into debt, it is primarily his responsibility to get himself out of it. However, they also know that lenders must share the responsibility for over-lending and over-borrowing. Most of all, they see that, unless the burden of debt is removed from the world's poorest countries, those nations will never be able to enter the virtuous circle of relative prosperity that the rest of the world enjoys.
Keeping those countries poor is not in our interests, any more than it is in theirs. All hon. Members have in their constituencies exporters who wish to find new markets overseas for their goods and services. An open and fair trading relationship between a newly prosperous Africa and the west would be good for us all. Moreover, as long as high debt contributes to deep poverty in the developing world, many of the by-products of that poverty will remain. Whether in the form of civic and ethnic unrest, environmental damage or the movement of refugees across borders, those by-products are problems for our countries to deal with, too.
The Government clearly understand the solid economic argument for debt remission. Last month in the House, the Prime Minister said:
Our view is that the most persuasive case for more debt relief is that it is only when those countries can escape the burden of their debt that they are able to develop economically. That is not a zero-sum game in which they gain and we lose; on the contrary, it is a game in which we can both win."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 962.]
We must also ensure that, if we cancel much of the debt of the world's poorest countries, we do not leave in place a system that allows that debt to build up in the same way again. That is why, just as we must be tough on those third-world leaders who saddle their people with debt that will have to be paid long after they themselves have gone, so we must ensure that there is no protection for lenders who behave irresponsibly.
That matter is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). I pay tribute to the excellent report recently published by the Select Committee on International Development under his chairmanship, and I am grateful for his support as a co-sponsor of the Bill. The other co-sponsors include four other Select Committee Chairmen: the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee; the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), Chairman of the Treasury Committee; the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
We must find a way to impose the disciplines of the market on international lending and borrowing. In this country, if a bank makes a loan that cannot be repaid, the bank knows that it will suffer a loss. That imposes some self-control on the lender. In lending to developing countries, whether by private institutions, G8 Governments or multilateral lenders like the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, there is hardly any such in-built discipline, and it is badly needed. That view was expressed in recent months by George Soros and Milton Friedman, neither of whom could be considered anything but a staunch advocate of the capitalist system.
Another powerful message articulated by the Jubilee 2000 coalition concerns the treatment of Germany in 1953. Germany was granted massive debt relief by the allied powers, who had learnt lessons from the aftermath of the first world war. The allies recognised that Europe would not break out of the cycle of conflict and insecurity unless Germany was to have a fresh economic start.
In 1953, the allies expected their old enemy to spend no more than 5 per cent. of export revenues on debt service. Forty-five years later, under the terms of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, industrial countries are


insisting that the poorest should spend some 20 per cent. of their revenues on servicing debts, and often much more. Unfortunately, the German Government do not yet take such an enlightened approach to their creditors, and interpret the HIPC initiative in its narrowest and most restrictive sense.
The Bill, which I shall publish in full, speaks for itself. Clause 1 calls on the Government to cancel the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries by the end of 2000. It defines "unpayable debts" as those that are inconsistent with the OECD poverty reduction targets, to which the Government are firmly committed, and those incurred by clearly corrupt regimes and later inherited by constitutional Governments. It requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that the new resources released by debt remission are directed towards meeting those poverty reduction targets.
Clause 2 requires the Government, through meetings of the Paris Club creditors and through their representatives on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, to urge similar action by other creditors. Clauses 3 and 4 require the Government to be more transparent and open in the information that they release about their own lending, through periodic reports to Parliament, and to seek international agreement for new discipline in lending and borrowing between developing countries and their creditors.
It is vital that pressure for such action is applied in other lending countries, especially strategically important ones and those that act as a block to progress. Jubilee 2000 is active in Germany, where plans for a public event even larger than the Birmingham human chain have been advanced for the G8 summit in Cologne next June. In the United States, too, Jubilee 2000 is strong, and it has gained a foothold in Japan. Signatures for the Jubilee 2000 petition number about 2 million, and are coming in from 40 countries. That number will greatly increase.
Britain must continue to act as a catalyst and a persuader for debt remission by 2000, and it must lead by example. The Bill will ensure that the next millennium begins on the basis of a generous, just and economically rational gesture.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Frank Cook, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Steve Webb.

REMISSION OF THIRD WORLD DEBT (JUBILEE 2000)

Mr. William Cash accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the remission of debt owed by the poorest developing countries by the year 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 22 July, and to be printed [Bill 235].

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Government and Parliament

Madam Speaker: We come to the first Opposition day debate, and I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That this House, reiterating the importance of a strong parliamentary democracy in Britain, deplores the fact that successive governments have increasingly diluted the role of Parliament by making announcements to the media before making them to this House; by undermining the legitimate revising role of the House of Lords; by giving access to lobbyists at a time when the representations of elected Members are dealt with in an increasingly dilatory fashion; by inhibiting the rights of backbenchers to make criticisms of their own side; by encouraging planted supplementary questions which fail to hold the Executive to account; and by responding to questions and arguments with meaningless soundbites and partisan rhetoric instead of constructive answers.
As I am coming up to my 25th anniversary as a Member of this House, this is a good moment to reflect on trends in parliamentary government, but we have not tabled the motion in the belief that there was a golden age from which we have departed. There certainly was not—not in my time, at any rate. When I was first elected, hon. Members wasted incredible amounts of time on voting through the night, which had no effect whatever on the substantive outcome.
Some things have improved in that period—we have a far more extensive and effective Select Committee system, for example—but important boundary lines have been crossed by successive Governments, at heavy cost to the ability of Members of Parliament to represent their constituents. The motion picks out some of them. I say "successive Governments" advisedly, because many of the trends referred to in the motion go back many years. We should never forget the catalogue of misleading of Parliament which was the Scott report. Long though it is, it should still be required reading for anyone who sits in this place, whether as a Member or as a Minister.
After the Scott report, no heads rolled at ministerial or civil service level; indeed, some people on the civil service side went on to high office. There was no lesson for the future and no example made, and a Government with a tiny majority survived censure by one vote. When a Government have a large majority, there is a danger that they will feel immune to risk of censure if they overstep the mark, whether by misleading Parliament, or merely by failing to inform Parliament or failing to take it seriously. Francis Pym pointed that out at the beginning of the Thatcher years, and he was proved right, even in the eyes of many of his colleagues.
The problems and failings set out in our motion are only part of the picture. We have readily co-operated with the Government on reforms that make the House more efficient, and we are pressing for more. We are working with the Government to introduce a series of wider constitutional reforms which we publicly agreed before the election, and which each of our parties put to the people in their manifestos.
We acknowledge that the Leader of the House spends some of her time fighting her corner within the Government on behalf of Parliament, as her role requires. So long as she continues to do that, we shall support her in that effort.
I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that he will answer fully on Prison Service matters in the House. He is abandoning his predecessor's specious and self-serving attempts to distinguish between policy, for which he accepted some responsibility, and operational matters, for which he accepted no responsibility, despite his habit of getting pretty closely involved in operational matters. In practice, that meant distinguishing between good news and bad news, of which there was plenty. Bad news was always someone else's responsibility, and never the responsibility of the former Home Secretary.
Labour in opposition spent a lot of time denouncing the previous Government's failings in their dealings with Parliament. The Foreign Secretary was notably successful at it, especially in the debates on the Scott report. We would therefore have expected more from the Government. People had not bargained on the extent to which the agenda-setting techniques of opposition and electioneering would be carried into government, often by the same people.
The Government are preoccupied with getting the story they want into the media, if possible to the exclusion of less helpful news. That determines the timetable. They prefer the story to come out in the manner least open to challenge or detailed criticism. To the spin doctor, a leak is far preferable to a statement that is the subject of questions.
Madam Speaker has repeatedly criticised the practice of making announcements outside the House before statements are made and subjected to questioning in the House.

Mr. Denis MacShane: May I pay tribute to Liberal Democrat spin doctors, who spun a rather anodyne, semi-Euro-sceptic speech by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in which he moved into mild, anti-European mode? It appeared for three or four days before the speech was made, and the right hon. Gentleman was on radio and television before he gave it. When he made the speech, he got hardly any publicity. I congratulate Liberal Democrats. They are copycatting new Labour media techniques to the very letter.

Mr. Beith: I must disabuse the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend is not a member of the Government, and was not making a Government announcement. We have to work hard, against the massed ranks of the Government and the Labour party, to ensure that we get into the press. I am glad to say that recycled speeches are part of our general policy on recycling, which is to make use of good material as often as possible. I hope that all my right hon. Friend's speeches are repeated at regular intervals.
I was referring to what Madam Speaker has said about statements of Government policy being made in the House rather than outside it, and being subjected to questioning. She commented on this matter in the previous Parliament in response to my right hon. Friend,

now Lord Steel, and she has done so repeatedly in this Parliament. A year ago today, she made a clear statement to the House, in which she said:
The practice of briefing in advance of a ministerial statement by Whitehall sources or ministerial aides has been current for quite a long time. My impression is that, over the past 20 years, it has progressively developed to the point where the rights of the House are in danger of being overlooked. The House is rightly jealous of its role in holding Ministers to account. If it is to fulfil its function properly, it must be the first to learn of important developments in Government policy. I deprecate most strongly any action taken that tends to undermine this important principle".—[Official Report, 21 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 703.]
She used similar words on 12 February 1998 and on 3 July, when she said:
I cannot deprecate strongly enough the leaks and the briefings that go on, perhaps behind our backs, in such matters."—[Official Report, 3 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 632.]
She has given the Government a clear indication of the position of the House and their obligation to it, but the practice continues.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made a statement about the spending implications of the comprehensive spending review, yet it was not until the weekend that I read in the newspapers about performance-related pay for teachers. That important aspect had been excluded from the statement, but was announced during the weekend.
On Monday, I read in the newspapers that the Government propose an interesting constitutional innovation. They are apparently proposing a European second chamber—a grand House of Euro-Lords—in which members of national Parliaments would assemble to provide a revising chamber for the European Parliament. It is an interesting idea: I do not condemn it out of hand, because it is worth discussing, but, given the Government's view of the House of Lords, it should not do too much revising. We could debate those matters if a policy statement were made to the House. They are certainly significant enough, by a long way, to merit debate in the House.
The Home Secretary's announcement on Boxing day always delights me. I do not know whether hon. Members were safe from their radios and televisions on Boxing day, but I happened to hear that the Home Secretary had written to every bench of magistrates in the country telling them to get tough on football hooligans. That conjures up a picture of the Home Secretary spending Christmas day, when there is no postal collection, writing letters to magistrates all over the country.
It was another of those announcements timed to catch a story on a weak day for news. I do not rate it very highly on my list of statements, because it was not a significant policy, and it did not have much effect. I do not think that magistrates listen to Home Secretaries who tell them what to do in court. Constitutionally, they should not do so. That example shows the way in which decisions about statements are too often being made.
The second issue referred to in our motion is the Government's extraordinary unwillingness to accept the revising role of the House of Lords, which does not augur well for the reform of the second Chamber. At present, the existence of hereditary peers with votes inhibits the Lords from challenging the elected Government on issues that were in the manifesto on which they were elected, and quite rightly so. Challenges from the other place are


usually on more detailed and less politically partisan matters, on which there are widespread anxieties about what the Government are doing.
In the argument about Scottish university fees for English, Welsh and Northern Irish students, we were faced with an irrational intransigence, and an adamant refusal to contemplate the idea that there could be another point of view. When the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was asked to say that he would not try to reverse the Lords amendments, he said:
No, I shall not say that… The most important reason is that, when an unelected House attempts again and again to overturn the declared will of an elected Chamber, it is always the democratic elected Chamber that must succeed in putting through its policies…we shall overturn the Lords amendment, and, if the Lords send it back to us again, we will overturn it again. That is why this House must always prevail over the unelected House next door."—[Official Report, 13 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 132.]
In the end, the Government agreed to include in the Bill a provision for a review, but getting even that concession out of them was like getting blood out of a stone.
There is increasing frustration in the other place at the unwillingness of Ministers to accept advice from a wide range of often expert opinion on matters that are not central to their political programme and did not feature in their election manifesto. For example, the Government refused to accept Lord Ackner's amendment for an advisory body on the criminal justice system, which had extremely widespread support and was not a partisan matter.
Ministers do not seem to like the idea of anyone else, particularly in the Lords but also in Standing Committees considering Bills in this place, having views that should be accommodated. They still seem worried about losing face, which is extraordinary for a Government with such a large majority. Why are they so insecure? What have they got to lose? What is their problem? I wonder whether counselling would help. They seem to have psychological difficulty in admitting that they are wrong, or that someone else may have a point that should be accommodated.
The question will have to be asked repeatedly during the debate on the reform of the House of Lords: do Ministers accept that there should be a revising Chamber or not? Will it be allowed to revise anything when it is eventually reformed?
Another matter that worries people inside and outside Parliament is that lobbyists may be more influential than elected representatives. The issue of formula one tobacco sponsorship left a long shadow, and dancing in the shadows we find Mr. Draper and others, who have glided effortlessly from a political to a lobbying role. Alastair Campbell's deputy has gone straight from government to the Murdoch empire, as corporate communications head of BSkyB.
There is much to be said for the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—who sits on the Government side—that ministerial advisers should not be allowed to take employment as lobbyists within five years. That proposal is well worth consideration. The Prime Minister's response was that anyone who broke the rules would be out on their ear, but we have yet to see any bodies in

Downing street. In any case, some of those causing anxiety are already out in lucrative jobs, and their high salaries may relate to people's belief in their potential influence.
At the same time as lobbyist influence seems to be on the increase, many hon. Members are finding some Departments dilatory or evasive in dealing with their representations. Ministers and Departments vary considerably in that respect. Some Ministers never forget that they, too, are Members of Parliament, and earn brownie points by the trouble they take in responding to Members—and good for them.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: They may soon be Back Benchers.

Mr. Beith: They may well remember that, come the reshuffle, they will be back on the Back Benches.
Those Ministers who do not fall into that "good" category should go into the black book, along with those Ministers who sail past the Members' Entrance on a wet night in a Government car, ignoring the queue of weary colleagues whose votes put them into the car in the first place. There is a definite difference in practice between Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked a question to the Department for Education and Employment about disability legislation. The Department failed to reply for three months, so he tabled a question one Friday, asking when the Department intended to reply. The Department rang him up and asked him to withdraw the question, saying that it would make an announcement the following Monday. As a matter of courtesy, he did so. The Department then released the contents of its reply to the media on that very Friday, but only to Parliament on the Monday. That taught my hon. Friend to be helpful and responsive to Ministers.
I used to find that parliamentary questions were answered within 10 to 14 days. Looking through the questions on my desk recently, I noticed that I tabled one on 1 June which was not answered until 15 July. Perhaps that was because it was about the political composition of appointees to health trusts in the north-east of England, but it took the Department long enough to find out fairly readily available figures. I have never made it my habit to put down a named day for answer to a question unless I have some reason to want it on that day. However, I have discovered that most Members now find that that is the only way to get an answer within a reasonable period.
None of the problems I have described are peculiar to the present Government. They did not begin in May last year, but they should not be continuing if the Government intend to reform the matters.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman did just say that he was used to getting answers fairly quickly, and that it was only recently that he had not.

Mr. Beith: Practice in some Departments has deteriorated recently, and needs to be looked at carefully.
When it comes to securing the compliance of Back Benchers in asking grovelling questions, the previous Government tried as well. They had their grovellers, especially at Prime Minister's questions. I remember the


former Member for Welwyn and Hatfield, who used to go on about "that lot over there"; the Labour party is now on the other side, and he is somewhere else now. The difference is that the present Government, so far, are much better at it.
The Tories could not keep it up. They had some doughty rebels, such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the Scott report, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—who is now on the Front Bench—stood out on a few matters of principle in his time, and I commend him for it. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has made a political career out of rebelling. The Tories have had their anti-grovellers as well. Indeed, they had such a fundamental division over Europe that there were a whole run of hostile questions that they could not resist in any case.
Why do a Government with a huge majority—and a Government who claim broad unity within the party in carrying out their election programme—feel so insecure that they must keep everyone on message around the clock? What does that do for effective parliamentary scrutiny? Some of the most useful and constructive criticism of Government policy could come from Members with relevant experience on the Government side.
We all remember the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asking Madam Speaker whether it was all right to ask an awkward question, even if it might embarrass the Government or the party. We also remember vividly the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asking:
Does the Prime Minister recall that, when we were in opposition, we used to groan at the fawning, obsequious, softball, well-rehearsed and planted questions asked by Conservative Members of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)?
He asked the Prime Minister to
distinguish his period in office by discouraging such practices
and to encourage
without fear or favour, and without showing partiality or affection—loyal Labour Back Benchers who wish to seek and provide scrutiny and accountability in this place?"—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 358–359.]
That is a legitimate and proper role.
So large is the number of new Labour Members that the Government have brought on to their own side experience in all sorts of walks of life, which can be a reasonable source of constructive and sensible criticism of what they are doing—criticism which they should invite and encourage, and to which they should listen. However, the duty Whip is always there with the book, noting down whether contributions have been helpful or unhelpful. I see that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) has her pen at the ready. Where is that information taken? The remedy lies in the hands of hon. Members.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have agreed almost wholly with the right hon. Gentleman so far. However, previous Whips did not need to write things down. They had various vocabularies which they employed outside the Chamber when the relevant moment arose.

Mr. Beith: Indeed. I have overheard many such conversations in my time. As a former Chief Whip, I could never equal them, given my sheltered life.
Labour Members do not need to accept and knuckle under to that level of discipline. Nor is it necessary to sustain their Government and their party in office, given the size of the majority. Their constituents will not thank them for it either, and their ability to suffer bad years—and bad election years—may be significantly affected if they are shown to be able to deliver constructive and sensible criticism from time to time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In my right hon. Friend's experience—which is longer than that of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Chamber—has there ever been a time when a Government member who dissented immediately became at risk of deselection, or of not being re-selected? Therefore, hon. Members' liberty to speak out—the purpose of being sent here—is qualified in a way that I have not seen in previous Parliaments.

Mr. Beith: With an extraordinary sense of anticipation, my hon. Friend draws my attention to a quote that I have with me from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). He said:
I cannot support my party in the Lobby tonight because I have not heard a convincing argument to satisfy me and enable me to do so. I would, in the more liberal times that prevailed in my party before the election, have joined the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby in support of their amendment, which comes closest to my own views but, as Labour Members know, shortly before the election, the standing orders of the Labour party were changed so that to vote against a Labour Government is now an offence against those standing orders and leads to withdrawal of the Whip and"—
this is my hon. Friend's point—
debarment from further candidature.
I wonder what he had in mind. The hon. Gentleman added:
One might think that an overreaction, given that we have the largest majority since 1935".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 398.]
That underlines my point.
The problem of soundbite politics is still with us, although I thought that things might improve following the change in Prime Minister's questions. Personally, I was sympathetic to what the Leader of the House did in at least trying a longer period in which it might be possible to follow questions through with related supplementaries. I did not share the criticisms of those who said that the right hon. Lady was somehow diminishing the rights of Parliament by that action. It may have suited the Prime Minister's convenience—with his singularly low attendance at Divisions in the House—to concentrate all on one day. However, I genuinely believe that it was worth a try, and that it may still be made to work effectively.
The change has not got rid of the time-wasting partisanship, and Prime Minister's questions has become a fairly stilted occasion—just as the previous twice-weekly occasion had become. The change seemed to offer the prospect of a more systematic scrutiny, but has hardly done so. That is not the fault of the half-hour slot; it is the habit of uninstructive partisan exchanges which so characterised the dying days of the last Parliament and have reasserted themselves, quite inappropriately, in this.
Too many ministerial responses are meaningless put-downs which would never be accepted at a normal public meeting. If one went to a public meeting in my


constituency—or any other constituency—and tried to use the same put-down expressions, one would get a severe reaction. The cry would be, "Answer the question. We did not come here to be insulted. We came here to ask questions and to get answers to them." That principle ought to hold in this House.

Dr. George Turner: As a new Member of Parliament, I am conscious of the need for quality debate in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a key ingredient of that is the quality of opposition, and that, while we get the drivel and partisanship of an on-message, off-policy Opposition, the quality of debate in the House will not improve?

Mr. Beith: Some of my criticisms are levelled in that direction, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must lead by example. If the Government get daft questions, that does not stop them giving rather more sensible answers which illustrate the paucity of the original question, rather than responding in kind. I can say that with reasonable objectivity because most of the gibes to which I refer were directed at the official Opposition.
The record of our debates shows that certain formulae recur again and again. There is a wonderful one which goes, "We will take no lessons". That is the Government's slogan: it should be written over their beds. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said:
We will take no lessons from the Opposition about commitments to community pharmacists."—[Official Report, 8 July 1988; Vol. 315, c. 1124.]
The Prime Minister said:
The Foreign Secretary does not require lessons on how to be the Foreign Secretary. It is the Leader of the Opposition who requires lessons on how to be the Leader of the Opposition."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 367.]
[Interruption.] They love it. When I repeat the phrases, Labour Members cheer. It is meat and drink to them.
The Prime Minister also said the Government did not "need any lessons" from the Conservative Opposition about the protection of the green belt. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:
I am very interested in what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, but I do not need to take lessons from the Liberal Party."—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 58.]
Where do they get such phraseology? A Government who are never prepared to learn lessons from anybody will one day come a serious cropper. It is at least conceivable that from the official Opposition Front Bench there will come from time to time suggestions to which the Government should listen. I assert that such suggestions also emanate from Liberal Democrat Members and from Labour Back Benchers. The repetition of the formula shows that the thought process has stopped, and the formula has taken over.
When the Conservatives were in power, the line was "the winter of discontent", and hardly anything could be said without reference to that event of 20 years before. It happened before some hon. Members left school, but the phrase was reiterated in question after question. When we mentioned electoral reform issues to the Home Secretary, he said that we were against such reform in 1923. That is not strictly accurate, and it certainly does not apply to any

of us in the House today. I expected someone to shout, "Munich," at the Conservative Front Bench, or to say, "Zinoviev," to Labour Members, not having discovered that the Zinoviev letter was a forgery. Such phrases go on and on, long after the expiry of their shelf life.
If Parliament is not visibly influencing events, the descent into partisan rhetoric may in part be a response to frustration. We are in danger of being turned into fans in a stadium, corralled in our team seats, shouting insultingly framed advice to those on the pitch, and organising the equivalent of the Mexican wave to provide the appropriate response to whatever is being said. Politics is a spectator sport, with salaries for the spectators, and, rather like football hooligans, they play to the cameras as well.
Madam Speaker has criticised the habit that grew up, and which seems to have been discarded, of hon. Members cheering when the leaders of their parties entered the Chamber. It was interesting to note that, once a year, that did not happen. That was on the day when television cameras were not here because we assembled in the morning before the state opening. When the Conservative and Labour leaders came in, one could have heard a pin drop. It was an occasion staged for the cameras, and all part of turning us into a kind of spectator sport. There must be a better way to run a Parliament.

Mr. David Winnick: From my experience and practice, I work on the assumption that we should freely express our views in the House, always bearing in mind that we were elected not as independents but as party politicians. I was a Labour candidate, and had I not stood as such, I would not have been elected. Therefore, I have to balance my responsibilities to my party with my view that this is a free House.
Is there not an air of hypocrisy about this matter? How often do Liberal Democrat Members disagree among themselves in the Chamber? Unless they agree on all the important issues, which is unlikely, it is likely that they have disagreements upstairs or in the constituencies and do not express them in the House. Do not let us be too hypocritical, and become holier than holy.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that what I have said is addressed to the House as a whole. We are challenging hon. Members to change the way that this place operates.
I do not deny for a moment the importance to the hon. Gentleman of being a Labour Member and wishing to express and support his party's views. I appreciate his pleasure at the fact that a Labour Government are in power. However, I know that there are areas in which he disagrees with the Government, and he is one hon. Member from whom I occasionally hear that. There are many others from whom I do not hear even the most guarded, careful and constructive criticism of what the Government are doing, at times when such comments could usefully influence the Government.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: To show that some of us are not holier than holy, may I say that I sometimes disagree with my right hon. Friend? I draw his attention to the fact that the frequent Government rhetoric about not taking any lessons from the Opposition is designed to cover the fact


that the Government are taking lessons from the Opposition. An example was the Home Secretary eating his words about getting rid of privatised prisons.

Mr. Beith: I fear that that trend developed in the run-up to the election, when they were all on the same message and used the same language about crime. In some cases, they protest too much, because there is agreement and they wish to emphasise disagreement.
We are challenging the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House to try to reverse some of those trends. It will not be enough simply to rely on good will and good intentions. Reform and modernisation must build in safeguards to ensure that Parliament can hold the Executive to account, and that laws and regulations are not merely pushed through this place but revised and modified to meet concerns that have been expressed through the democratic process on behalf of the people who will be affected.
Some steps have been taken. They include a resolution of the House on ministerial accountability, which is referred to in the Government's amendment. That amendment is characterised not by matters on which I disagree, but simply by complacency, and I challenge the Government to do rather better.
Other steps include the determination of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs not to be denied information that it needed to carry out its work of scrutiny. I welcome that, but the Committee had to fight hard for it. Another was the first steps towards a logical system of programming the discussion of Bills. There is still a long way to go to make that system work properly, but we have supported the Government in taking the first steps along that road.
Let us have more major reforms that can help to safeguard Parliament's position. More use of Special Standing Committees was shamefully abandoned after being introduced by the previous Government. Those Committees enabled witnesses to be heard before we started the detailed consideration of Bills. There could be more use of pre-legislative examination of Bills. Constitutional Bills could be examined partly in Committee and not wholly on the Floor of the House, where much time is taken up by repetitive argument and not enough is spent ensuring that a Bill's details are right. A price will be paid for that in Scotland and Wales, because there was insufficient scrutiny of some of the detail of the relevant Bills.
Why cannot Parliament sit more evenly through the year, and not disappear for nearly three months at this time of year? I think that the Executive like it that way. They are delighted to get rid of us, and there will be a sense of relief in Departments when we have dispersed, but that is not a good way to ensure that the Executive are held continuously to account.
We could have a system like the Australian main committee system, which extends the scope for Chamber-type activity to give more opportunities for ministerial policy statements to be questioned and for Select Committee reports to be debated. Of course, the biggest parliamentary reform would be to get rid of artificial majorities and give parties no more and no less strength than the voters had accorded them, but on that the British people will decide.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes that members of the Government are present daily in both Houses, putting forward the case for the Government's legislative and financial proposals and being held to account for its policies and actions; welcomes the all-party support for the establishment of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and the endorsement by the House of key proposals to make Parliament more effective and efficient; notes that more statements have been made by ministers this session than in the equivalent period in 1992–93, and that Cabinet ministers have given oral evidence to select committees on more occasions than the average for the past seven sessions; and believes that the Government has lived up to both its manifesto commitment and the 19 March 1997 resolution on ministerial accountability.
I welcome this debate in the way that I always welcome debates on matters pertaining to the House. It is the third debate on parliamentary matters on Opposition days in almost as many weeks. We are pleased to be here, and I can understand why Opposition Members are keeping away from policy issues, especially after our comprehensive spending review announcement last week. I cannot say that the topic for debate has gripped the House's attention. If attendance is an indicator of concern about the way in which the Government relate to the House, it should be noted that about 25 per cent. of Liberal Members are present and that the Opposition Back Benches are empty. I congratulate the Conservative spokesmen, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on being here. With such a poorly attended debate, it cannot be said that the motion gives rise to massive concern.
The Liberal motion and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both proclaim:
A plague o' both your houses",
although he has acknowledged that there are some important issues that we should all take on board and talk about.
Perhaps I can start with two points of agreement. First, although some people think that there was a golden age, there has never been one. There has never been a cocooned situation, with Parliament acting in a vacuum and the press and people outside never asking any questions of politicians, other than those that were asked in the House. That is probably a good thing. Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed when he implies that the low point in the relationship between Government and Parliament was probably at the time of the Scott report. That is a fair point and I think that everyone, in all parties, has to learn from that.
I should like to take each of the items in the Liberal motion and set the record straight on some of those before going on to other points.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the right hon. Lady is a very courteous Leader of the House, but may I ask her to set an example by referring to my party by its actual name? She persistently refers to us as the Liberal party and she must know that that is not the party that is represented on these Benches. There is a Liberal party, but it is not in this House.

Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to be corrected. Perhaps I am displaying my age in remembering the fact that, when the


right hon. Gentleman was in the Labour party with me, a Liberal party existed on those Benches, but I shall try harder and try to recall the words "Liberal Democrats", even though it is sometimes difficult to use them in certain circumstances.
The first accusation in the motion is that the Government are making too many announcements in the media before making them to the House. There is more pressure now. I think that it has built up over the past decade. Broadcasters are trying all the time to put pressure on to get stories in advance. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed acknowledged that. He said that the pressure had built up during the time of the previous Administration. I think that that is true, but I also think that we all have responsibilities to get the balance right in informing the House where appropriate and in giving the wider picture to the press as necessary.
We all have one problem in common—try getting any issue on to the "Today" programme if it is something that happened the day before. That programme and others of that ilk are interested only in speculating about what might or might not happen—I am glad to see hon. Members agreeing. That is one of the difficulties: people are trying to anticipate the parliamentary agenda.
I remind the House what the ministerial code says on that matter:
the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.
That is the code that we try to stick by. It does not, of course, stop Ministers talking in advance about the issue, the background and the problems that have led to any change in policy.
Time and again, I have heard Ministers being pressed to go further when they have been interviewed on the "Today" programme, resisting revealing their conclusions, but being willing to set the scene, not least because, if they did not, we would probably hear the view of an Opposition spokesperson or someone from another party and no one would have put the other point of view. Judgments have to be made on that basis every day. It is important that we remember the basic rule and that Ministers, when setting the scene for a statement, do not overstep the mark and give away details that should first be revealed to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady is right to quote the principle, but may I ask her to reflect, for example, on the past week? It was clear that a series of statements were to be made in the House by Ministers following the comprehensive spending review, and we all knew in advance what the order of ministerial statements would be. Clearly, by that definition, they were important, yet, on almost every occasion, many of the details of the statement that was made here at 3.30 pm were, in precise terms, in the press that morning and so the subject of discussion on radio and television.
Can the right hon. Lady say to us with any clarity that there has not been pre-briefing in the past week on almost every occasion by the Government? Given that it is obvious to the country that there has been, will she give an undertaking that she, on behalf of the Government, will ensure that, when we know that a statement is going to be made, no information will be given to any of the press

about its contents until it is announced here? Then we could all be on the "Today" programme the next day, or not at all, but the "Today" programme would have to follow Parliament, not Parliament follow the blessed "Today" programme.

Mrs. Taylor: I should never have thought of the hon. Gentleman as naive, but I have no confidence that his last suggestion would be followed by anyone. It would be wrong for Ministers to give details of important statements on the "Today" programme, but, as I have said, it is appropriate on occasions to give background briefing. Certainly, with regard to the comprehensive spending review, an awful lot of what was being talked about was in the document that was produced at the time and in the departmental press releases in response to parliamentary questions, which were out on Tuesday. However, many people did not look at the detail until the individual Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and made their wider announcements. It is important that we get the balance right, and much effort goes into doing so.

Mr. Beith: I want to make this clear. In concentrating on the "Today" programme, the right hon. Lady is in danger of forgetting where much of this is happening. A lot of it is briefing by advisers—indeed, Madam Speaker has referred to that—to newspapers. If a Minister is on a programme and he goes too far, we all know that he has overstepped the mark and the criticism can be made. The problem arises when the information has come out, usually to the written media, in the days preceding a statement, and probably because of advisers rather than Ministers.

Mrs. Taylor: Exactly the same principles must apply in terms of scene setting and background information, but no inappropriate disclosures should be made outwith the House.

Mr. MacShane: Does my hon. Friend recall an all-night sitting when there was an earnest debate on corporal punishment and we all had to stay until six o'clock in the morning? We all opened, I think, The Independent and read a speech by a Liberal Democrat spokesman, which was printed in the paper because he had sent out a press release. The only problem was that he had not made the speech. Is there any greater contempt of Parliament than hon. Members pre-press releasing their speech and not even turning up to make it?

Mrs. Taylor: I remember that debate and the points of order. The whole text of that speech could have been read to the House from the newspaper before the Liberal Democrat Member had opened his mouth. That was an interesting situation, which fortunately does not happen too often. Perhaps that is because the House does not sit that late so often. Perhaps if we had more late sittings of that sort, we would have more breaches of the convention.
It is true that the Government are making many announcements and that there are many changes in the policy pursued by the previous Government. It is right that we should be making many announcements and changes in policy because, after all, that is what the electorate voted for. In fact, the Government have been making statements to the House more frequently than their predecessors. If we look at the numbers of oral


statements per sitting day, at the moment, we are ahead of what other Governments have done. There are occasions when I have to advise colleagues against making a statement on certain days.
Occasionally, usually by agreement, there have been statements on Opposition days; it happened once following a private notice question from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, on a Conservative Opposition day. Such statements have usually been by agreement and we are grateful if other parties feel it appropriate to give up their time because we try to respect the convention.
It would have been tempting to look at all the cases where the previous Government scuppered Opposition days by having statements. We are not saving up major announcements in order to destroy Opposition debates. Ministers have been very forthcoming. For example, I recall that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister came to the House at 10 o'clock one evening because he thought it right that the House should be informed, at the earliest possible moment, of an important development on the channel tunnel rail link. Such instances show how seriously Ministers take the House.
The second charge in the motion is that we are
undermining the legitimate revising role of the House of Lords".
It is the most puzzling of the charges because I am not sure what the Liberal Democrats are saying. Is it that the Government must accept every amendment from the House of Lords? It is clearly not, as that would be daft. It is not undermining the revising role of the House of Lords to disagree with some of its amendments.

Mr. Norman Baker: Since the Government came into power, on how many occasions have they accepted amendments from the House of Lords?

Mrs. Taylor: There have been more than 2,000 amendments to Government legislation, many of which resulted from the Government taking away and redrafting defective amendments, including some from the other place, because we accepted them in principle. A recent example is an amendment relating to parish councillors serving as school governors. Following amendments and representations in the other place, the Government took the matter away and came back with a technically correct amendment.
It is legitimate to assess each defeat in the House of Lords on the basis of the merits of the case and the importance of our original stance, and then determine whether the amendment is an important, constructive revision or one designed not to improve legislation, but to show simple points of disagreement.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that, had the Government's proposals for the reform of the House of Lords proceeded to phase 1—that is, all hereditary peers were removed—the Government's defeat on Scottish tuition fees would still have happened? Would she still say that the Government could not accept that amendment, even from their reformed House of Lords?

Mrs. Taylor: I was not referring to that particular amendment. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it that, with a reformed Chamber with no hereditary peers, this House should always give way to it?

Mr. Tyler: No.

Mrs. Taylor: Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has no case. Each amendment must be looked at on its merits and the Government of the day have to make an assessment. I am beginning to wonder whether the Liberals of today are less radical than they were in 1910, when they first talked about reform of the House of Lords. I recall that when we debated the role of the House of Lords in the Joint Committee, before the last general election, there was no doubt in Liberal minds that the House of Commons must always be the primary Chamber. That is an important principle. As a Chamber, we are entitled to insist on having a particular amendment or on not accepting an amendment from the other place. However, there may be consequences such as delay or what we call ping-pong between the two Chambers.
The third point in the motion relates to giving access to lobbyists. Again, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made complaints that I do not believe stand up when we examine the details. It was unwise of him to highlight recent accusations, especially those in The Observer. That newspaper made three accusations, the first being that there had been some Government involvement in the leaking of a Select Committee report. That was a serious allegation and it was important to examine it, and that happened very quickly.
The right hon. Gentleman should know, because it is now clearly in the public domain, that the Select Committee report in question was available on an embargoed basis on Monday 8 June. It was the fifth report on energy policy. A Jonathan McShane, who works for GJW, signed for an embargoed copy of that report. That company allegedly breached the embargo and certain actions have been taken following that. There has been no suggestion of any Government involvement and it is important that that is acknowledged.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be far better if no embargoed copies were given to lobbyists?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the incident in question will cause the House to ask questions about who should get embargoed copies. The security surrounding those copies is not all that great. However, it is our practice that anyone who has given evidence to a Select Committee has access to that Committee's report. In future, we must be careful about how we exercise that practice. Of course, journalists also have access to embargoed copies and, in view of what has happened, the House may want to review its practice.
The House is aware that people need to have proper information, which brings us back to the balancing problem, which was mentioned earlier, of how we give people proper information without them then breaching the embargo.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the early publication of the draft


Bill on freedom of information would do more than any other single act to restore and improve the relationships between Government, Parliament and the public? As Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, I can tell her that we were grateful to be given copies today—within the two-months deadline—of the Government's response to the Select Committee's comments on the White Paper, "Your right to know". Will she assure the House that, in line with signs from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the accompanying letter, the Government will be able to publish the draft Bill in late September for further scrutiny?

Mrs. Taylor: It is still our intention to publish that draft Bill, and I shall come to the subject of draft Bills later. I hope that publishing the White Paper was a sign of good faith. We are grateful for the work that my hon. Friend's Select Committee has done on it.
I want briefly to deal with the two other allegations in the motion, as we need to ensure that they are on the record. There was a suggestion that the Mansion House speech had been leaked. The Observer called the information that was supposed to have been leaked "gold dust". If so, it was fool's gold because it was a fantasy leak—those items were not even in the speech. The other information in that article did not stand up either.
In case the Liberals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Liberal Democrats."] Yes. If the Liberal Democrats want to talk further about lobbyists, I must remind them that the famous McNally amendment in the other place was, as we learned recently, written by lobbyists. I was not aware of that until I saw an article in The Independent on 7 July. The legislative officer for the National Federation of Retail Newsagents was quoted as saying:
Along with the Telegraph and the Guardian we had been LOBBYING the Government ourselves over the Bill… A firm we use as consultants (Charles Barker) suggested that we speak to the Liberal Democrats and we did that. We were introduced to Lord McNally and he agreed to table an amendment to the Bill. Charles Barker helped us in drafting a possible amendment.
I will not say that we will not take lessons from the Liberal Democrats because I have been told not to do that. However, all hon. Members must be extremely careful about what they say. Lobbyists can play both legitimate and illegitimate roles. We have to be careful that we do not throw mud and simply accept what is in The Observer or anywhere else when real issues have to be examined, not only by the House but by others.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the Leader of the House will agree that if lobbying organisations—acting on behalf of, for example, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association—were never allowed to supply amendments to hon. Members, much current legislation would not have been enacted. Lobbying has to happen. However, as she rightly said, we have to ensure that lobbying is regulated and that, in many cases, it does not entail financial implications for the Government or civil servants.

Mrs. Taylor: The point I was making is that people should not he self-righteous about it.
There have been problems with correspondence from Ministers, but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members will know that I have taken action to try to improve the situation. It is true that, in some Departments, the volume of correspondence has increased significantly—something that, I am told, happens after every general election—but we shall soon be publishing information on the volume of correspondence, targets for responding and the percentage of replies that have been sent within those targets.
As for inhibiting the rights of Back Benchers, I do not think that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) sitting alongside me, I have to say any more. I do not think that he feels particularly inhibited. However, we will make no apologies for being a well-disciplined party. Moreover, I think that the electorate will appreciate the fact that Labour Members are happy to support the Government. We all know the difficulties that the previous Administration experienced because they were so riven by indecision. As has been said, a lot of mythology has grown up around inhibiting rights.
I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are saying that only hon. Members who disagree with Government policy should ask questions. However, I think that Labour Members are perfectly entitled to welcome Government policy, if that is what they want. I also remind the House that Government Back Benchers are in a particularly difficult position. The fact is that 325 Labour Back Benchers are competing for chances to participate at Question Time. Moreover, in debates, they are competing on an equal basis for a chance to speak with a much smaller number of Opposition Back Benchers. Therefore, if Opposition Members want changes in the House's procedure, perhaps we should consider allowing Government Back Benchers—because of their number—to ask two supplementary questions for every one from Opposition Members.
I had some examples to share of meaningless soundbites and partisan rhetoric, but—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has given us enough examples of his own—I shall not do so.
I do not want to take too much time for my speech, as other hon. Members want to speak. However, I should say that I regret that the Liberal Democrats have not used their motion today to welcome some of the Modernisation Committee's changes, particularly on programming. A Government with our majority could have imposed guillotines on every single Bill without taking into account the wishes of any other party. However, we have adopted a less confrontational approach, and tried to proceed by agreement. I sometimes think that we have proceeded too much by agreement in dealing with the Liberal Democrats.
The House will recall that the Government were happy to consider on the Floor of the House the main clauses—dealing with the Bill's principle—of the Government of Wales Bill and to consider its remaining clauses in Committee, as happens with the Finance Bill. However, as the official Opposition are so fixated with the idea that Committee stages should be taken on the Floor of the House, we reluctantly agreed, through the usual channels, to consider that Bill in that manner. It was hardly arrogance on our part to agree to do that.
I hope that we shall be able to deal with other legislation in other ways. However, not only the Government but Opposition Members have to be accommodating on those matters. We can proceed by agreement only if other parties will meet us halfway.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had mentioned Euro-scrutiny, and the very good report from the Modernisation Committee—with the backing of the Select Committee on European Legislation—that improves the House's scrutiny of what is happening in Europe. The report is a big step forward and should be acknowledged.
We have in some cases extended the remit of Select Committees, and, when requested, given them Sub-Committees. More Cabinet Ministers are appearing before more Select Committees than ever before. We have established the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and have taken other, similar action.
Governments, and Ministers, occasionally make mistakes. If a mistake is made, it is right that we should offer an apology—which the House is usually very willing to accept. However, I do not accept that there are significant and real problems. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there has been no golden age. If each hon. Member is to try to improve Parliament's position and role, we shall all have to work together and be willing to consider how the House operates. The House cannot merely make more demands of Government.
We can be proud of the Government's record in responding to the House's needs. We are trying to lead the way in modernisation, to consolidate that relationship. Although there will always be a healthy tension between Government and Parliament, we have to maintain a proper working relationship, and that is what Ministers are trying to achieve.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Both the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about there being no golden age. I suppose that it would be truer to say that each one of us has his or her own golden age, when things were really splendid. However, I think that we all agree that it would be very difficult to come across a shared golden age.
When the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made his speech—very felicitously, as he always does—my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) whispered to me, "I wonder if he would have made that speech when he was Chief Whip of the Liberal party?" As the Leader of the House made her speech, I could not help but wonder whether she would have made that speech had she still been on the Opposition Front Bench and Conservative Members had still been on the Treasury Bench. The answers to the questions are, of course, "No, he wouldn't," and "No, she wouldn't."
We have had in this debate some interesting observations and information from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not a member of the Government came somewhat as a surprise to Conservative Members.
I must also confess that I was slightly disappointed when I was told about the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—whom I always think of as a

friend—and his Boxing day television. If one has to watch politics on television on Boxing day, one really has been driven to some form of extreme.
There is a serious subtext to this debate. I should refer the House to an interview that was reported, in March 1998, in The Sunday Times, in which the Minister without Portfolio was quoted. He said:
It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end.
He went on to discuss the role that
plebiscites, focus groups, lobbies, citizens movements and the internet will have on replacing Westminster democracy".
It was a chilling message.
I suspect that feelings that have been enunciated many times in recent months about such messages perhaps prompted the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other Liberal Democrat Members, very wisely, to choose the subject for today's debate. It was certainly because we were concerned on that front that we chose this general subject, focusing on Select Committees, for a Supply day debate a couple of weeks ago. I should like to go through the motion, as both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Leader of the House have, and to make a few observations.
The motion refers to the making of announcements. The Leader of the House tried to gloss over that, but should not have done so. Within a week of the beginning of this Parliament in May last year, at least three announcements fulfilled the criteria about which she has just told the House: significant changes in policy should be announced on the Floor of the House. If the announcement on the Bank of England was not a significant change of policy, I do not know what is.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The House was not sitting at the time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Chancellor needed to have waited only two days—and could have done so. The fact that he did not showed a trend.
It was a pity—I put it no higher than that—that the Leader of the House did not announce on the Floor of the House the change to Prime Minister's Question Time, which has not helped the parliamentary process. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady's parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), is very good at making sedentary interventions. I understand his frustration because, once upon a time, I was a PPS. He is deeply frustrated because he feels passionately about matters and wants to have a go—God bless him—but is not supposed to say anything. It is a pity that the change to Prime Minister's Question Time was not debated in the House. I remind the right hon. Lady of the Modernisation Committee's undertaking to consider and assess the matter. I very much hope that, in assessing it, she will take the feeling of the House, as she has properly on other issues. The change has not been a good one; I suspect that many colleagues in all parties share that view.
Let us consider the announcement, to great fanfares—literally—of the change to an ethical foreign policy. Of course, I would not subscribe to the view that we had an unethical foreign policy in the past, but for the


Government, the change was great and should have been announced on the Floor of the House.
The motion refers to
undermining the legitimate revising role of the House of Lords".
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made some pertinent points about that, but the Leader of the House, who is a fair-minded person and enjoys wide respect in the House, did not really meet them. I saw in one of the daily newspapers recently that a Downing street aide was reported as having said:
Peers are sent to do a job and that job is to represent the party not snub the Prime Minister. We'll be more careful who we appoint in future.
That is pretty sinister. We are told that we are to do away at a stroke with hereditary peers, yet no proper coherent plan for a second Chamber has been put before the House. The Government have embarked on a major constitutional change without telling us of the destination, which some of us would quite like to know. It is very bad for democracy if newly appointed life peers are being sent to the House of Lords with such a remit. The House of Lords has a legitimate revising role, and it is important that it should be able to say, "Think again."
When I sat on the Government Benches, I was one of those who were strongly opposed to the War Crimes Bill. I was delighted when the House of Lords took action. It was entirely constitutionally proper for the Government and the Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, to override the House of Lords, but it was equally proper for the House of Lords to tell us to think again. It was very unwise of the then Prime Minister to ignore that warning.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the constitutional position, but he must agree that, although it is right that this Chamber should consider what the House of Lords says, we have the right to say whether we accept its advice. Nothing should be automatic. By rejecting any Lords amendment, we are not undermining the principle of a revising Chamber.

Sir Patrick Cormack: No, but there should not be automatic repudiation of the House of Lords actions. I am afraid that that is what has happened. The majority in this House should not be used as a steamroller to crush sensible amendments, such as that to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, concerning Scottish universities, which was recently sent back to the House of Lords a couple of times. Although there is nothing between the right hon. Lady and me on our understanding of constitutional doctrine, the application of that doctrine and the high-handed way in which the House of Lords has been regarded over the past year is deeply disturbing. This country would not be well served either by a unicameral system or by a second Chamber of placemen and appointees. It is terribly important that an independent element has the opportunity to say to us, with its wisdom and experience, "Think again." [Interruption.] The PPS, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, is at it again.
We should bear it in mind that their lordships do not have our constituency responsibilities; they have more time to think and reflect than we do. There is therefore an opportunity for them to say to us, "Look, you haven't got it quite right." I think that that was behind the part of the

Liberal Democrat motion concerning the House of Lords. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was entirely right to make the point, and the Leader of the House should think a little more carefully about her response.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I may not agree on every iota of policy on a second Chamber, but I share his implied frustration. One of the reasons often given for criticising a Lords amendment is that it comes from the House of Lords—referring implicitly, and often explicitly, to the make-up of the second Chamber. Its configuration is such because Governments of both main parties since the war have allowed that to be so. The Government are going to change that. The amendment on tuition fees would have been agreed without the votes of hereditary peers. We are all willing to listen to an alternative view; we should not rubbish those who put it. Until the House of Lords is changed, their lordships have as much right to put their point of view without being rubbished as we have to put ours.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would have been agreed without the support of not only hereditary peers but Conservative peers. There was a majority of non-Conservative peers on that issue.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about lobbyists, and the Leader of the House sought to reply, making some reasonable points. We should all be very concerned about the growing power and influence of lobbyists. We in this Chamber should be the lobbyists. We are sent here by our constituents, who have the legitimate right to expect us to lobby and put forward points of view on their behalf—even if we must dissociate ourselves from such points—in order to ensure that they are appropriately and adequately considered in Government circles.
The accretion of power to lobbyists and the deluge of their paper into our offices every day performs a disservice to the democratic process that we must address. The Leader of the House was gracious enough to acknowledge that when she spoke of embargoed reports. We must look at the code of conduct governing lobbyists. I hope that we shall have an opportunity in the reasonably near future specifically to debate that subject.
The motion refers to
inhibiting the rights of backbenchers".
Let me draw the attention of the House—hon. Members in the Labour party will, of course, have received this missive—to a letter sent out by the Chief Whip and quoted in the press on 18 August 1997. He wrote:
Dear colleague,
I am circulating to every member of the Parliamentary Labour Party the extract from the Labour Party rule book which deals with membership conditions and the national disciplinary rules. In particular, can I draw your attention to rule 2a, 8, which states that no member shall engage in a sustained course of conduct prejudicial, or detrimental, to the party?
That is fair enough up to a point, but no party machine should seek to snuff out the independence of Members of Parliament. I am delighted to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is a loyal


member of his party. He is not afraid to express dissent when he feels that his party is going wrong on particular issues.

Mr. Mackinlay: Do me a favour. Call me a dirty swine.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I used to have praise heaped on me when I spoke against the poll tax, so it is rather fun to get my own back. The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and several others are those whom new Members should take as exemplars.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about the planting of supplementaries. That is not new, or unique to the Government, but my attention has been drawn to the activities of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs who was caught drafting questions for Labour Members. He wrote to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), urging her to table a question on carbon monoxide poisoning, and suggesting precise wording. He added:
I can assure you of a helpful response which your local paper may be interested in when I respond to you on the floor of the House on April 2.
Perhaps it should have been 1 April. It is a pity that planting of questions has reached such a pass. I used to be hostile when some of our Ministers circulated hymn sheets of suggested supplementary questions. I did not believe that it did any service to the parliamentary process, and I objected strongly.

Dr. Lynda Clark: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Conservatives have abandoned the idea of planting questions? I was unfortunate enough to have them try to plant one on me some months ago, and I declined to ask it. I agree with the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says. Planted questions are unhelpful, and I should be delighted to hear that the Conservatives had given up the practice.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. and learned Lady's charm and distinction are such that she was mistaken for a Conservative Member. We are learning.
Planting questions is not a good idea. Those who are elected to the House should have the nous to ask their own questions, and to think up their own supplementaries. I can truthfully say that I have never accepted a plant. I hope that no self-respecting Member of Parliament ever would.
The motion mentions
meaningless soundbites and partisan rhetoric".
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has analysed the Prime Minister's responses to questions over the past year, and found that the Prime Minister sidestepped the question or refused to answer no fewer than 88 times—once in eight answers. That is the prerogative of Ministers at the Dispatch Box, and everyone does it from time to time. However, it has become an art form for the Prime Minister, who should look over his old answers. He was asked a straight question the other week, about when he last met Mr. Rupert Murdoch. He answered that he regularly meets newspaper proprietors. That is no answer. He was asked a specific question, and he should have given a

specific answer. We have a right to know when the Prime Minister meets the most important media mogul in the world. If we are not told, we shall continue to ask.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has referred to a question that I asked the Prime Minister, and I am glad that he felt that it was pertinent. I discovered subsequently that the Prime Minister had seen Mr. Rupert Murdoch at Chequers only three weeks earlier.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend crept in, leaving me unaware that he was here. I was not at Chequers, but I am most grateful for that information, which is on the record now for all to read.
The amendment tabled by the Leader of the House is a shade complacent. She asks us to note
that members of the Government are present daily in both Houses".
Big deal. Where else would they be expected to be? The right hon. Lady really cannot get away with that. Those Ministers are, she says,
putting forward the case for the Government's legislative and financial proposals".
What else are they supposed to do? They are also, she says:
being held to account for its"—
the Government's—
policies and actions",
but I do not believe that that is done as effectively as it should be.
The motion mentions
all-party support for the establishment of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons".
The Leader of the House will readily acknowledge, as she has before many times, the constructive roles played by my right hon. Friends the Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and for North-West Hampshire—and, for a time, by me—on the Modernisation Committee. The thrust of that Committee should be to make the House a more effective forum, and to make our other Committees more effective instruments for scrutiny. Every proposal from the Modernisation Committee should have those aims in view. If we believe that they do, we shall support them. If not, we could not support them.
The Leader of the House said that Ministers have made more statements in this Session than in the equivalent period of 1992–93. That is understandable. A Government flushed with victory and with all sorts of things to place before us should introduce more statements than a Government in the last year of a Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that 1992–93 was the first year of a Parliament?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry. However, we were already into our fourth term, and we were merely building on the achievements of previous periods in office. The past year was the first in which the Labour party had been in power in 18 years, and we expected a lot of statements. However, many of those statements were leaked.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to say that we need to consider the media's position, particularly that of "Today". I know that Ministers are tempted to accept invitations on to that programme, but it is wrong of them to trail statements in detail before they make them in the House. I trust that the Leader of the House will remain in her position after the forthcoming reshuffle, because she is a good Leader of the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: That's got me worried.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that she has no need to worry. I hope that the right hon. Lady will use the recess to write to her ministerial colleagues to draw their attention to the code, telling them precisely what they should and should not do and say on "Today" or elsewhere.
The motion states:
ministers have given oral evidence to select committees".
If a Select Committee asks a Minister to come, the Minister comes to give evidence. It is quality of evidence and lack of evasion that are important. There have been some sorry performances before Select Committees in the past year, one of which has occupied the attention of the House more than once. The Leader of the House cannot rest on her laurels.
The motion says that the Government have lived up to their manifesto commitment. The Leader of the House will know what is satisfying in that regard, but, from this vantage point, I do not feel that the Government have served the House as they should have over the past year.
An item in today's Financial Times says that the freedom of information Bill is at risk. Even if only by way of an intervention, I hope that the Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who is scribbling furiously, will nail that lie. I take it that we will get the draft freedom of information Bill that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised in the Queen's Speech. It would make a mockery of the defence that the Leader of the House has put up this afternoon if we will not.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an interesting speech to introduce the motion. The House is grateful to him. I hope that his colleagues will support him. Although there are many differences between us and the Liberal Democrats—to give them their full and exalted title, although the hon. Gentleman who complained about that seems to have left—I hope that we are united in wanting a Parliament in which Government can be held fully and properly to account and where legislation can be fully and thoroughly scrutinised. I hope that the Government will take no further step to frustrate either of those objectives.

Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is particularly pertinent to this debate and to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). Today, the Government issued a White Paper entitled "Promoting Disabled People's Rights for the 21st Century" on the creation of a disability rights commission—a manifesto commitment by the Government and a matter of major concern to disabled people. I understand that the Minister

responsible for disabled people talked about the forthcoming White Paper on the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning and that there was a press conference launching it this morning, yet there has been no statement about it to the House. Is this not another example of the Government bypassing Parliament? I should be grateful for your guidance on whether it is normal practice for the Government to issue a White Paper through statements rather than the "Today" programme.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is having a busy round of meetings. The Government have made much of trying to involve the Committee in pre-legislative inquiries. We are conducting one on pension splitting on divorce. Just as the Government did not see fit to bring the White Paper to the House, they did not see fit to bring it to the Select Committee. What is the point of having a Select Committee if it is kept in the dark, like the rest of Parliament?

Mr. MacShane: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had we had a statement on the White Paper, we would not have had a debate. As the official Opposition never allow statements on their Opposition days, is this point of order not typical of the frivolous hypocrisy that we have come to expect of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not automatic practice that a statement of Government policy is always made to the House. Over the years, practice has varied according to the matter concerned. It is not a point of order on which the Chair can rule, so much as a matter for a debate. We happen to be having that debate now.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: I am sure that disabled people will be more interested in the fact that, after 18 years without progress on disability rights, we have a Government who are about to do something about them.
I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have given us the opportunity of debating the relationship of Government to Parliament, for two reasons. First, it gives us the opportunity to nail the myth perpetuated by the Opposition parties that the Government have little regard for the House or Back Benchers. Secondly, I am fed up with the derogatory and damaging portrayal of new Members as having no interest in fulfilling their scrutiny role. Particularly offensive are the gratuitous attacks on new female Labour Members, which are as sexist as they are unjustifiable. To be fair, they have emanated from the Conservatives rather than from the Liberal Democrats.
The majority of new Members do not want the great traditions and history of the House eradicated or its role downgraded, but, to use a concept defined by a distinguished Member of the House, we seek to apply traditional values in a modern way. At the heart of this debate are the accusations that the Government have centralised power in the hands of a few Ministers and trusted advisers, and that scrutiny and debate have been abandoned in favour of spin doctoring and sycophancy. It is time that the facts spoke for themselves.
The Prime Minister set in motion a system for electing Members of the European Parliament that will inevitably lead to reduced Labour representation in Brussels and an increase in the representation of Opposition parties. The Government have devolved power to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The Tories have been practically wiped off the political map in Wales and Scotland, but will almost certainly secure more representation than they have now.
The Government are committed to a referendum of the British people on the Jenkins commission recommendations on a new voting system. The option ultimately presented to the British people could conceivably not be favoured by the Prime Minister or by the majority of Labour Members. So much for centralist tendencies. I suspect that many Labour Members would welcome a more centralist approach on those matters.
Several accusations often appear on the charge sheet levelled against the Government on its relationship with Parliament. First, it is said that Back Benchers do not rigorously scrutinise the Executive. Let us be frank. The main Opposition party is the most ineffective Opposition for a generation. The shadow Cabinet is led by a man whose main virtue is that he is not the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Many of its members are recycled former Ministers who continue to labour under the misapprehension that they were born to rule and that 1 May 1997 was an illusion, an aberration or both.
There is also the often-repeated accusation that Labour Members are sycophants, ruthlessly controlled by a combination of pagers and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Perhaps we should ask the Foreign Secretary whether he feels that Labour members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs neatly fit into that category. We could ask the same of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of his departmental Select Committee or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose approach to the single currency was questioned publicly by the Treasury Select Committee. They are compelling, authentic examples of the Executive being held to account by hon. Members, but they are rarely used in evidence because they contradict the conventional wisdom of what has become a good story.
I do not deny, or apologise for, the fact that the instinct of the vast majority of Labour Members is to be loyal to the Government. There are three predominant reasons for that.
First, disunity made a massive contribution to the 18 years that we spent in opposition and ultimately rendered the Conservative party unfit to govern. Disunited parties not only do themselves a disservice, but become paralysed and unable to pursue the public interest.
Secondly, unlike their predecessor, this Government have put in place policies that allow them to achieve the commitments made in their manifesto. I want to hold the Government to account on the commitments that I made to the people of Bury, South before the general election. It is difficult to fault the Government on that, as the Opposition are rapidly realising. We can tell that because when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the results of the comprehensive spending review last week, the Liberal Democrats did not say that we should spend more, but suddenly suggested that they would watch more closely our ability to deliver.
Thirdly, there are many other ways in which Members can fight for their constituents' interests, including conversations in the Lobby; meetings with and letters to Ministers; ministerial visits; campaigns that attract the support of colleagues and the interest of the media; Adjournment debates; and Select Committees. I do not accept that loyalty contradicts independence and/or integrity or is somehow a threat to the purity of parliamentary democracy.
I turn to the other issues that have been raised in the debate. Of course, leaks of imminent Government announcements before ministerial statements in the House are regrettable. However, I sometimes wonder how Opposition Members maintain a straight face while protesting so self-righteously. Are such leaks a new Labour invention—no doubt the consequence of the inordinate amount of power given to the Prime Minister's spokesperson and other so-called spin doctors? It must be a figment of my imagination that similar leaks were common during 18 years of Tory rule and that a certain Mr. Bernard Ingham existed.
We have heard in the debate how Liberal Democrat spokespersons are capable of warning the press about speeches that they never deliver in the House.
There is also the bogus—I use that word deliberately—issue of the Prime Minister's attendance in the House. Of course it is right that he attends Prime Minister's Question Time and makes statements about international summits and other issues in his domain. He has done that, surpassing the attendance of the previous Prime Minister during his final 12 months in office. I cannot recall—perhaps my colleagues will assist me—many sightings of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in the past 14 months. If his support for his colleagues was demonstrated by his 30-second appearance in the Chamber earlier, that is a sad reflection on his feelings about the importance of attendance in the House.
I believe that the Prime Minister owes no one on either side of the House an excuse or an apology for not attending more often. The British people want him to exercise his talents and energies tackling problems such as Northern Ireland, strengthening Britain's role in Europe and the world, and modernising our country economically and socially. It is only the egos and pettiness of some parliamentarians that would have him sitting in the Chamber waiting to vote late at night or touring the bars and the tea room.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has voted in about 5 per cent. of Divisions in the past year? Is he aware also that all the Prime Minister's predecessors since the war have voted considerably more often than that?

Mr. Lewis: I am aware that no Prime Minister in the history of this country is as popular as the present Prime Minister or has been able to begin to resolve the Northern Ireland situation. I am aware of many things regarding the Prime Minister's contribution since Labour was elected 14 months ago.
Of course it is essential that the Prime Minister remains in touch with the views and concerns of hon. Members, but meaningful structures must be created to facilitate that and lead to genuine, rather than superficial, dialogue. We have heard others mocking the fact that Labour Members


ask helpful questions during Prime Minister's Question Time. Is it not time that we came clean with the British people and viewers around the world about the primary purpose of Prime Minister's Question Time? It exists to provide an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members to embarrass and undermine the Prime Minister and the Government in the full glare of the nation. It is disingenuous to suggest that it is anything but knockabout, superficial party politics. In that context, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of Labour Members seek to assist the Prime Minister in rebutting Opposition attacks and promoting the Government's record in a positive manner.
I turn now to the much-maligned constituency weeks, which are parodied by the media as holidays and by the Opposition parties as another attempt to negate the importance of Parliament. Those views demonstrate clearly a flawed and out-of-date definition of the role of Members of Parliament. It is no wonder that, in the past, Members of Parliament were out of touch with the lives of ordinary citizens. Let us be honest with each other while no one else is watching: this place is a theatre, a village and an institution, but it is the furthest thing possible from the real world.
Of course, Members' roles in Parliament are crucial. However, of equal value are the roles that we fulfil in our constituencies. Case work, community leadership, and supporting local businesses, voluntary groups and schools are important activities and ensure that our actions in the House are informed by the life experiences of real people. I believe that the attitude adopted by new Members of Parliament to those responsibilities is, on the whole, different from the attitude of those whom they have replaced.
I remain perplexed by those hon. Members who manage to have paid jobs in addition to their role in this place—I can assume only that they are neglecting many of their duties. We all know that it is nearly impossible to do justice to the needs of our constituents and our families by confining our constituency activities to weekends. The concept of constituency weeks deserves praise, not cynical criticism from those who enjoy the game of politics but who often forget its purpose.
Parliament must continue to act as a credible check on the activities of Government. However, it must change if it is to retain the support and confidence of the people. Hereditary peers have no right to frustrate the will of democratically elected Governments. Outdated procedures and hours of sitting must be modernised if Members of Parliament are to make effective contributions. The Leader of the House deserves particular credit and support for her work in that area.
Irrespective of party, we should be better at explaining that much of what is best about the House and its scrutiny of Government occurs in the building but outside the Chamber. We should not seek to deny the impact of modern global telecommunications on people's views of politicians and politics. While there will be occasions when events in the House influence the political climate immediately or over time, we know that elections and popularity are increasingly determined by politicians' performances on the television and on radio and in newspaper reports and editorials.
Perhaps we should reflect on the fact that, when we fight for Parliament to hear important news first, we are saying that 659 people have more right to know than hundreds of thousands of citizens who tune into television and radio and read newspapers. However important elected representation is, are we correct in making that claim?
I believe that the charges levelled against the Government reflect the Opposition's frustration at the popularity of the Prime Minister and Government policies among the British people. Opposition Members hope that, by labelling the Government arrogant and unaccountable and their new Members of Parliament as sycophants, they will sow seeds of doubt that will eventually assist their political fortunes. In reality, the Opposition have no credible policies or alternative answers to the challenges facing Britain as we approach the 21st century. I am sure that the Government look forward to the day when they are faced with an effective Opposition. That is the real crisis of scrutiny in Britain today.

Mr. Norman Baker: The motion, which I very much support, is about the tension between Parliament and Government, but it is apparently also about the tension between different elements of the Labour party. That has become evident this afternoon, and I shall explain it to the Minister.
We welcome the areas of agreement and co-operation to which the Leader of the House referred, but there is an element in the Labour party that is keen to centralise information and keep it secret and to deny Members of Parliament their proper role. Both of those elements in the Labour party are represented in the House today, and they are progressing parallel to each other during this Parliament.
I am keen to debate the motion partly to tease out the battle between the two sides. The result will be determined partly by the freedom of information legislation, to which hon. Members have referred—notably the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who has done a splendid job progressing that issue—and partly by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who popped into the Chamber a moment ago. He is the subject of much criticism and undermining.
It is interesting that, despite all the leaks that have been mentioned, there has been no reference to the leak that has appeared in the newspapers almost weekly for the past six months, which tells us that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will lose his job. I am interested to learn where that leak is coming from—it is certainly not coming from the Chancellor of the Duchy. I wonder whether his view of the future, which is based on openness, accountability and freedom of information, is shared by those who are leaking against him and suggesting that he would be better out of his job. They imply that the job should go to someone else, and the name of the Minister without Portfolio has been mentioned in that regard.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Government who dispensed with the services of a


right hon. Gentleman as fundamentally honest and decent as the Chancellor of the Duchy would diminish themselves?

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. The Chancellor of the Duchy is an honourable Minister and I hope that he retains—or, indeed, advances—his role in the Government.
Manipulation of the media is one area where the secretive and controlling tendency within the Labour party is exercised. The Leader of the House admits that there are background briefings to the "Today" programme. There is a fine line between a background briefing and providing information on documents that are about to be released.
I, for one, knew most of the contents of the White Paper on transport without having to come to the House to hear the Deputy Prime Minister's statement. On the radio that morning, he said that he was not responsible for that information having come out; I believe him because he is an honourable man, but somebody was responsible. All the information, on workplace parking charges, and everything else, was read out by the presenters on the "Today" programme as if it was fact, not speculation. It was stated, "Today's White Paper will pronounce on these particular matters." Someone had given the "Today" programme a clear steer which it had bought on that particular occasion.
The reason why manipulation of the media is so important is that it gives the Government an edge over Parliament, over the Opposition and, indeed, over their own Back Benchers, because the Government get their spin in first. Opposition Members and some Labour Members are fed up with living in spin and they want to see the Government proceed in a different manner.
In my Adjournment debate on 24 April, I set out the links with Mr. Rupert Murdoch and his colleagues—the incestuous relationships between close friends or members of the Labour party and Mr. Murdoch and News International. Recently, Tim Allan, who was for six years at the side of the Prime Minister, has taken the Murdoch shilling. We have watched the various links emerge between lobbyists and members of the Government—lobbyists who are members of the Labour party, or close friends of Ministers, or who have other such connections.
Lobbyists will always be with us of course, but it is important that they should be accountable, that we know what they are doing, that they perform according to set rules and that they are open to scrutiny. That is not the case at present. In a television interview earlier this year, Madam Speaker said:
There are far too many of what I would term apparatchiks who have been accustomed, when a party was in opposition, to want to get the maximum publicity. Now in government they have to be harnessed a little more.
That is exactly right.
The key question is whether the Government will allow one element—the central control freak element—to achieve its objective of pulling every lever available to it as the majority party as far as it will go, or whether they will exercise a bit of self-restraint in the interests of democracy and of Parliament and say, "No, we shouldn't pull that lever because it would tip the democratic balance too far in one particular direction." I would argue that

some members of the Government are pulling every lever as far as it will go. There are many others who are not doing so, but some are.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: All of us on both sides of the House are concerned about lobbyists, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are a number of lobbyists who spend an awful lot of time around politicians in the House, who are members of the Liberal Democrats and who are actively seeking posts in that party—perhaps they want to be Liberal Democrat candidates at the next election? Is it not disingenuous to describe lobbyists as being solely the problem of the Labour party?

Mr. Baker: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he did not give way during his speech, but I do not think that he has been listening to my speech. The fact is that, because lobbyists will continue to exist, whether they are lobbying us, the Conservatives, the Labour party, or anyone else, it is important that they are regulated, that we see what they are doing and that they are publicly accountable for what they are doing.
Let me conclude by asking, what the role of Parliament is and how it is performing. We have a two-Chamber Parliament, but the upper Chamber is largely disregarded by the Government, who, when they do not like what comes out of the House of Lords, say, "That is an unelected body. It is full of hereditary peers and we shouldn't listen to them." The House of Lords is dismissed on that basis and is therefore ruled out of the equation in respect of amending legislation. In the Conservatives, we have an official Opposition who, bless their hearts, were not very good in government and are even worse in opposition, so they are not currently holding the Government to account to any great extent.
We have Labour Back Benchers, some of whom are very courageous and who, while being perfectly loyal to their party, speak their minds—I had better not say which Labour Members I have in mind, lest I damn them further, but there are those who speak their minds while remaining loyal. Equally, there are Labour Members who stand up at Prime Minister's Question Time and ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that he is the best thing since sliced bread. That sort of question does not help the House. If they do not want to ask a difficult question, why do they not ask a constituency question and bat for their constituency, which is perfectly loyal and enables them to do something useful?
In summary, we have Labour Back Benchers who are constrained on pain of losing their seat, a Conservative Opposition who are frankly not very good, and the House of Lords which is ignored. In those circumstances, it behoves the Government to recognise that they have a massive majority and unlimited power. Although they do not use that power on every occasion, as the Leader of the House said, they have a responsible position and they must exercise their power responsibly. Labour Back Benchers must recognise that if that power is not exercised responsibly, it is not only the country that will be the loser. In time, the Labour party will be the loser as well.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I shall try to keep my remarks brief because I am conscious that the three Front-Bench speakers have taken up nearly 60 per cent.


of the debate, so that, allowing the normal time for replies, only about 20 per cent. is left for Back Benchers. A little more timetabling would be no bad thing.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has the whole-hearted support of our hon. Friends for her modernisation agenda. She can go harder, faster and further forward in making Parliament more effective, even notwithstanding a veto by the Conservatives.
I have been distressed to hear in the debate the view that the only truly honourable Member is one who disagrees with the manifesto on which he was elected. I find that utterly offensive. We are hearing the sour grapes of hon. Members who do not like the verdict of the British people. The British people decided last May on Prime Minister's questions and on several other issues, but, when the measures are put into operation, we are told that the people's views should be ignored because some obscure Liberal—or Liberal Democrat or whatever they call themselves—has to be heard.
We can scotch the myth that Parliament is somehow being downgraded. During the mid-19th century—the golden age of Parliament—the House of Commons met for barely six months and shut up shop for half the year. Churchill made his speeches warning Britain about Nazism to a completely empty Chamber. Over the past 10 years, from the high drama of Lady Thatcher's overthrow to the disappearance of the previous Government's majority, we have been fed on parliamentary royal jelly and it has been very exciting.
I remember that, when going into the Division Lobby three or four years ago, my pager went off; it was a message from my constituency party saying, "Defeat the Government." When we did so, a message came through saying, "Well done. Keep it up." I suppose I was on message even then, before the Whips got hold of my number—I have not given them my private number and they are not going to get it, either.
Now, we as a nation are in rather calmer water. We have a Government with a clear majority and an agenda for 10 or 20 years of modernisation and reform, as everyone in the country unites around new Labour and the third way; but, of course, the Government have to be accountable to Parliament. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing figures on the extent to which the Labour Government are accountable.
So far, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made 12 full statements to the House and taken all the questions that followed, compared with only nine statements made by Mrs. Thatcher in 1983–84, when she also had a dominant majority. My right hon. Friend has already answered more than 800 questions in this Session. The fact is that, unlike every other Head of Government in Europe or anywhere else in the world, the Prime Minister comes to the House, week after week, to be held accountable by Members of Parliament.
So far in this Session, we have had 42,355 written questions, compared with only 35,000 questions in 1984–85, or 32,500 questions in 1991–92. The answers may not be satisfactory, but Ministers are responding. My goodness, I asked several oral questions of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister and never once did I get a straight answer. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that Conservative Ministers at any stage answered questions directly or honestly.
One way in which the Speaker and Parliament can call Ministers to account is private notice questions. In 1992–93, the first full year of the previous Government, there were 26 private notice questions granted; so far in this Session, there have also been 26, so no change there. In addition, there have been many ministerial statements.
It is interesting to note that the number of Select Committee hearings has risen from 827 in 1983–84 to 1,081 in 1992–93; and by the time Parliament rises at the end of next week, that figure will have risen to 1,338. Select Committees are increasingly holding Ministers and experts to account.
It is nonsense to suggest that Members of Parliament are not putting the Executive under pressure. Perhaps they are not doing so in the House, because Front Benchers take up all the time with their lengthy speeches, but Back Benchers are having a tremendous impact in Committees. Many arguments have been presented and many opinions have been expressed, but the concrete facts that I have given show that this Government are as much under scrutiny—if not more—as any other recent Government.
Let me now turn to the fourth estate sitting in the Press Gallery. It would be helpful if the media provided some proper parliamentary reporting. The BBC has undoubtedly let us down by "cleansing" parliamentary reporting from the "Today" programme. However, we also need hon. Members to turn up. Where are they? They all trooped in for that stupid publicity stunt at 6 pm, but they then whizzed out as fast as they could to read out their statements. Admittedly, one Conservative Member is present—and a very distinguished parliamentarian he is, too.
We have had two important debates on the two most recent Fridays, one on NATO enlargement and one on the Landmines Bill. Last Friday's debate on NATO enlargement was opened by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary; his shadow did not turn up. The Opposition defence spokesman made the speech, gave apologies and left the Chamber. As for the debate on the previous Friday—the subject being landmines, an issue which was very important to the country—the shadow Foreign Secretary was present, but the shadow Defence Secretary did not grace the House with his presence.
That is the problem: we do not have an official Opposition who are taking the House seriously. Perhaps that is because there are 19 Conservative Front Benchers with extensive outside earnings. As long as this part-time approach to Parliament continues, with hon. Members' earning more from two consultancies—or other outside earnings—than from a salary for holding the Executive to account, this place will suffer. The Leader of the Opposition has cleaned out his sinuses. As a sufferer from sinusitis, I have some sympathy with him, but I think that, having done that, he needs to clean up his Front Bench.
In my opinion, this Government are accountable to Parliament. As a parliamentary private secretary to a Minister in the Foreign Office, I sense that Ministers are concerned about appearances on the Floor of the House and before Select Committees. That is right, but there is not much more that the Government can do until—occasionally—there is someone on the Opposition Benches. Until then, Parliament's good name will suffer.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I do not think that any of us can take pride in the attendance at today's debate. Although this may be acutely embarrassing to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in particular, I think that Parliament is diminished by the lack of interest that is being shown in such an important subject.
Reference has been made to a question that I asked the Prime Minister on 3 June. Let me place it on record that I have had no problems in that regard from the Chief Whip or from any of his subordinates. An awful lot of mythology is sometimes created about such things. Indeed, I have received considerable endorsement from some very senior members of the Government—although I will not embarrass them by saying who they are. The point is that, in my opinion, the message that I tried to convey on 3 June commands the support of many hon. Members across the political spectrum. I said that there should be less choreography and more spontaneity in the House. I also think that the growing habit of reading speeches should be deprecated.
Following what I said, there were many good-humoured comments, but there was also a suggestion that I had become a Trotskyite. When that charge did not stick, it was suggested that I was going to join the Liberals. Then I was asked whether I had been given Matthew Parris's planted question.
As for my being a Trot, I have been a member of the Labour party for a long time—like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and I have supported and sustained Labour Governments and Labour Oppositions in good times and bad; but there are some who, as members of other parties in the late 1960s, the 1970s and the early 1980s, peddled the most godalmighty rubbish on occasion, and are now members of Her Majesty's Government. If anyone really pressed me on the issue, I would want to draw attention to that.
As for my joining the Liberals, if you cut me in half, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would see that I have "Labour" written all the way through me like a stick of rock. As regards Matthew Parris, I have never had a conversation with him in my life—although I would love to, because I am sure that he is a delightful journalist.
Another point was put to me, quite seriously. People said to me, "Your game plan, Mackinlay, is to be as difficult as you can, so that you will be promoted." That brings me to a serious issue. One of the problems in our political system is the assumption by friend and foe alike, by journalists and others, that promotion in politics means becoming a Minister. I reject that view. I want to make this abundantly clear: I want to paint it on people's eyelids. I do not want to be a Minister, and, during my time in the House, I have done everything possible to show it. I think that such a development would be retrograde. Above all else, we want people in the House of Commons who are prepared to scrutinise the Executive without fear or favour, and regardless of party.
Having said that, I must add that I have been guilty of many sins in my time, one of which is participation in adversarial politics. That is in the nature of our system, and I hope that I will do the same often in futures, but I feel that, far too often, we lob points across the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) referred to "knockabout superficial politics". I think that Oppositions should occasionally congratulate Governments, and Governments should accept sensible suggestions from Opposition parties. That, I think, is wholly consistent with the basic principle that British politics is adversarial. I hope that all parties will reflect on the need for greater maturity in approaching the ideas and propositions of the various partes.
Reference has been made to the number of statements that have been issued, the number of questions tabled to the Prime Minister, and whether statements should have been made to the House. There is a problem for any Government in that regard. If a Government are prepared to issue White Papers and so forth, they may clog up the parliamentary day and the parliamentary week with statements.
We saw that this evening. We are engaged in an important debate, but there was a statement earlier that ate into our time, and there have been points of order about the fact that there was not a statement about something else. We need a system allowing statements to be made that do not take up core parliamentary time, so that the House has an opportunity to examine other issues.
That brings me to the maturing role of Select Committees. Perhaps the task of taking questions on the Floor of the House should be more absorbed by Select Committees, if we want this place to remain the fulcrum of democratic debate in our country and to maintain its current richness and spontaneity, with less and less choreography. I must also accept, reluctantly, that we are moving to a presidential system. That is not anyone's fault; the fact is that telegenics is important, as are the instant news media. That exists, and cannot be undone or wished away. Meanwhile, the role of Government is so large.
I hope that, during the lifetime of the present Government, we will find ways of providing the necessary checks and balances of a presidential system, because that is what is missing. We need a system enabling us to scrutinise actions by Government—by the Executive. This basically Victoriana-style Parliament—I do not mean that disparagingly—has not so far been able to build such scrutiny into its machinery.
As for the House of Lords, I must say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it would be tremendously helpful to the United Kingdom if the Conservatives argued for a democratic House. Presumably my right hon. Friends would say, "We will take it." The fact is that, as sure as night follows day, there will eventually be a democratically elected upper House, and after a while everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
There is no excuse for not having a democratically elected Chamber—a Chamber subordinate to the House of Commons, which will always be supreme, but a second Chamber that has the opportunity to scrutinise and, indeed, to frustrate. I think that frustration is an important element in democracy. It should be there regardless of the fact that a Government may have a mandate at the general election—the mandate should not be a blank cheque enabling Governments to railroad through any measure without reflection.
I should like to see a democratically elected House of Lords. If we are to have an interregnum of an appointed House, I hope that my right hon. Friend the


Prime Minister will consider these two suggestions: first, he could set up elections within the Labour party to decide who should be Labour peers, and no doubt other parties could follow suit; secondly, instead of having mere nominees from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other principal Opposition parties, why could not Madam Speaker nominate a few people, so that the loose cannon, the maverick, the eccentric and the jolly difficult could get into the House of Lords? That is, until such time as it becomes a democratically elected Chamber.
I have no desire to be a Member of that Chamber, because my lifelong ambition was to be Labour Member supporting a Labour Government. I have said already that my ambition was not to become a Minister. Instead, I wish to stay in Parliament in the Labour cause, staying in the House of Commons.
We need to consider the control and management of the House. I think that we should have repatriated to the House, from the Government, decision making on how and when the House sits and what train paths there are for legislation. Those matters should be in the hands of a Select Committee of distinguished parliamentarians, so that Government would have to negotiate the time that should be made available for Bills. Parliament would decide when the House should sit.
There should be ring fencing of private Members' legislation instead of the charade of having a Second Reading debate and no more. If there is a majority in Parliament—certainly in a democratic House—for a measure to go through, the Government, so long as they control the timetable, should ensure that it goes through the legislative process and is not held up by any humbug. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) graciously nodding in agreement. Believe it or not, I am grateful for that.
The Labour party in opposition, in general election after general election, at least implied to the electorate that, if it were elected, the abolition of fox hunting would be given the opportunity to reach the statute book. I do not lie awake at night worrying too much about such legislation, but I am certain that it was implied to the electorate that, if it commanded a majority in the House, such a Bill would be able to reach the statute book. That was implied, but it has not happened.
I welcome this debate. I wish that we had had more time to explore these matters. I conclude by reiterating the remark of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), that loyalty does not contradict the concept of independence in this place. I am proud to be a member of the Labour party. I was a Labour parliamentary candidate on, I think, six occasions when some others were members of other parties, trying to undermine Labour Governments and Labour leaders.
Sometimes the best friends that a Government can have are those who give them counsel and caution. Mrs. Thatcher eventually had no one left at the Cabinet Table to say, "Prime Minister, I think that the poll tax is a daft idea." There is always danger for a Government if there is suppression of the enthusiasm and loyalty of Back Benchers who see it as their job to counsel their own Government as well as criticising the Opposition.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I would love to follow every intricacy of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), but I shall not do so, for two reasons. First, in the interests of brevity, we want to try to complete the debate reasonably soon. Secondly, it might embarrass the hon. Gentleman to know that I agree with almost everything he said, and that most of his arguments are Liberal Democrat policies.
I hope that the Leader of the House will have had time—if not, I hope that she will make time—to think carefully about the comments of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber this evening, and to read an extremely interesting article in today's Independent by Donald Macintyre entitled, "Is there any life left in the House of Commons?" Many of the criticisms that have been made on the Floor of the House today are repeated in that article. These are not merely House of Commons matters, of concern only to Members. Many important and interested commentators outside the House share the views that have been expressed from those occupying the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Conservative Benches, and by the hon. Member for Thurrock in the past few minutes.
It was not necessary to be a supporter of the Labour party to witness and perhaps experience a feeling of some relief, hope and expectation on 2 May 1997. Many people, even Conservatives, felt that it was time for a change. One reason was that many people were fed up with the bitter memories of the arms-to-Iraq scandal, as exposed by the Scott report, when Ministers, despite the faults that were obvious then, and despite their demeanour in deliberately deceiving the House, refused to resign.
There were bitter memories, too, of a tide of sleaze—the lies and deceptions of some Members. Perhaps that involved only a handful of Tory Members, but some Members were involved, and there were still no resignations. There were bitter memories of a Government who dug themselves deeper and deeper into a hole—into a bunker, perhaps—and were afraid to face reality, especially over some of the crises that occurred towards the end of that Administration, such as the BSE crisis.
Against that background, the Labour Government came to office with a great deal of hope and expectation from people who were not necessarily their supporters, including many Liberal Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Government was to compress Prime Minister's questions in the parliamentary timetable from two slots on Tuesday and Thursday into one slot on Wednesday. That happened without adequate consultation, and without an opportunity for the House to debate the issue.
As it happens, I do not think that the new Prime Minister's questions format is that much worse than the old, but it was, to my mind, symbolic of the new Government and their arrogance on taking office that they did not think it necessary to give the House the opportunity to discuss that important change.
The hon Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said that the change was referred to in the Labour party's manifesto. That is bunkum. The following statement appeared in that manifesto:
Prime Minister's Questions will be made more effective.
If anyone thinks that what we have experienced over the past 12 months is more effective than what we had previously, he should think again.
The only changes that have been effective are the ones that the Modernisation Committee has introduced into Prime Minister's questions. I am glad to hear that the Leader of the House has accepted my proposal that there should now be a proper review of the experience of the past 12 months, with all parties involved, so that we can fulfil the objective of the Labour party manifesto. Prime Minister's Question Time has certainly not been made more effective so far.
Another statement in the Labour party's manifesto was perhaps commendably brief, but I think that people would say that it was rather general:
Ministerial accountability will be reviewed so as to remove recent abuses.
That came under the heading "An effective House of Commons". Anyone who thinks that that has happened over the past 12 months has another think coming. That review may be coming, and I hope that it will, but it has certainly not taken place so far.
I hope that the Modernisation Committee, on which I am pleased to sit, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, will be given a role in the review. The Government amendment acknowledges that there has been no change since March 1997 on this issue. There is a reference to it, but there has been no change.
Substantial evidence has been put before the House tonight about ministerial statements. There was the recent curious episode when the occupancy of the Conservative Benches increased by about 400 per cent. when some Conservative Members dashed into the Chamber to tell us how important they think the House is—that happened for two or three minutes—and to draw attention to a White Paper published this afternoon promoting disabled people's rights.
When my party was consulted about the timing of statements—we acknowledge that that is a perfectly proper and welcome activity for the usual channels, and I shall not betray any confidences—we indicated that we would be very interested in a statement on disabled people's rights. However, we were not consulted about it being slipped in by the back door without a proper statement in the House. It is extraordinary that, if it was found necessary last week to make a statement on the subject—it was suggested that this was a proper day on which the statement should take place, although that would take time out of our debate—it should now be found necessary to make a statement, but not to the House, simply to the media at a press conference.
Those criticisms came originally not from Members but from the Speaker's Chair. It is Madam Speaker who has drawn attention to this habit of Government. Madam Speaker properly said—our motion endorses this—that the habit has not suddenly grown since 3 May 1997. I remember many occasions on which I complained to the previous Leader of the House in the previous Parliament about government by press release. That has increased, is increasing, and should diminish. That is surely an issue that the Leader of the House, who represents us all in government, should take up seriously with her colleagues in Cabinet.
I was surprised by the right hon. Lady's reaction to the criticisms from various parts of the House of the Government's attitude to the House of Lords. She cannot have been in her place when her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in an

extraordinary and uncharacteristic rant, gave the House the impression that anything that came from the other place should automatically be knocked down. That is effectively what he said. At the end of his speech that night on tuition fees at Scottish universities, he said that he did not care what was said in the House of Lords, it would be knocked down by the House of Commons, and we had a right to do so.
That is an extraordinary attitude to adopt a few months before we see the Government's proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, especially as that amendment, as has been pointed out, was defeated by the life peers, not by the hereditary peers, and by the non-Conservative peers. If that attitude is adopted, as the hon. Member for Thurrock said, the House of Lords will not be able, under the reform that the Government have in mind, to prevent a blank cheque from being issued to any Government—and it could be a Conservative Government in future.
The right hon. Lady and her colleagues should contemplate the occasions on which the House of Lords had the independence of mind, under those 18 years of Conservative rule, to knock down a Conservative proposition. Were the Lords all right then, and are they suddenly all wrong now?
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), in his inimitable style, presented some additional evidence to arm our case. I am grateful for his contribution to the debate; I just wish that he had had more support from his Back Benchers. Apart from the extraordinary episode I mentioned, they have been totally absent. I am glad that a couple of them have now turned up.
In the recent Friday debates to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred, on landmines and on NATO, there were more hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches than on the Conservative Benches. That comes hard from hon. Members who have spent considerable time in recent months complaining about contempt of Parliament. Where are they this evening? I expect that they have gone off to entertain themselves elsewhere.
The Labour Back Benchers who contributed to the debate have been notable for two reasons. First, we heard two speeches from Labour Members which, to judge from their tedious repetition, were evidently drafted by the Minister without Portfolio. Secondly, we had the interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Thurrock. I shall not embarrass him any more by referring to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) identified precisely the purpose of Back Benchers, whichever party they represent. We are in the House to hold the Government to account. That is our purpose, collective and individual. I hope that we will see more of it in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the interesting contribution to a debate on 19 November 1997 by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), in which he spoke of the parliamentary Labour party's standing orders. In my view, they are a potential contempt of the House. In 1974, when I was a member of the National Union of Journalists, I was held to account by my union—by the Glasgow chapel of the NUJ—because I dared not only to speak my mind in the House, but to vote on a particular issue. I was summoned to a meeting of the Glasgow NUJ. I took the matter to the then Speaker, and it was found to be a clear contempt of the House.
The Labour party should look closely at its standing orders. If there is a real threat, as described by the hon. Member for Brent, East, that he could lose his livelihood because of the way that he spoke and voted in the House—for the sake of time, I shall not quote again what he said, but that is the clear implication—that was a contempt of Parliament.
I understand that the Prime Minister is to make one of his fairly rare visits to the House tomorrow to speak to the parliamentary Labour party. If he believes the words in the amendment to which he has put his name, he should seek to change those standing orders. I know that he cannot control these matters—presumably not even the Minister without Portfolio controls the parliamentary Labour party to that extent—but the Prime Minister should put his name to a change in the standing orders, to make sure that the "more than my job's worth" attitude of some Labour Back Benchers goes for good. That would be a useful issue for discussion at tomorrow's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party.
I shall refer to one other episode of recent weeks. On 1 July, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), the Prime Minister said:
The hon. Gentleman will know that medical students are exempt from the new provisions on student finance."—[Official Report, I July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 355.]
That was said with no qualifications—a firm statement. I must be careful not to use unparliamentary language, but it is simply untrue.
Everybody knows that that statement is untrue. Within a few minutes we knew that it was untrue, yet, under consistent pressure from my colleagues and me, neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House has been prepared to accept that that is simply an inaccurate statement. It was probably a slip of the tongue, but is it not extraordinary that the foremost Minister in the country is not prepared to admit to a small mistake?

Mr. John Bercow: Not big enough.

Mr. Tyler: Not big enough. Surely the Prime Minister and his colleagues should be prepared to accept that mistakes are made in the House. The least they can do, out of respect for parliamentary democracy, is admit to those mistakes.
In a parliamentary democracy, Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, must be big enough to be open and honest with Parliament. They must be big enough to admit a mistake, however big or small, when they are clearly in the wrong. One reason why the previous Government went down to such a humiliating defeat was that they became arrogant about their own power, arrogant in the conviction that they were always right and did not need to listen to anyone else, and arrogant in the belief that they did not even need to listen to the House of Lords.
For the sake of the future of parliamentary democracy and the confidence that people have in this institution, I should be sorry if the high hopes of May 1997 dwindled into dust. A Government who fail to take responsibility and to admit to their mistakes demean themselves, demean Parliament and demean the ethos of our democracy.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I am proud to stand and defend the record of a Government who pride themselves on their openness, their modernising tendencies and their willingness to meet the needs and demands of the House.
Some of the comments made in the debate suggest that the House can be over-confrontational. That is true, but there are times when it is necessary to be confrontational. We must confront injustice, dishonesty, poverty in our communities, and so on. However, there are also times to be emollient and to accept criticism. Unfortunately, I have not heard a great deal today to make me feel emollient towards the Opposition on either side of the Gangway.
I shall deal first with the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. By his own admission, he is the patron saint of lost causes. I know that his benediction on her prospects has caused her some concern. He will be aware, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out, that during the debate there was a sudden influx of Conservative Members, who quickly left when they had made their rather spurious point.
It is worth putting on the record what really happened. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) came in and suggested that, once again, the Government had, in her view, acted improperly—over the White Paper on disability. Let me give the timetable of events.
The White Paper on disability was announced in a written question at 11 o'clock; the White Paper was available from the Vote Office at 11 o'clock; and a press conference was held at 11 o'clock. Moreover, only last Monday, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security was refused permission, through the usual channels, to make the statement that was being demanded on benefit fraud—a subject which is supposed to be close to the heart of the official Opposition—because it was an Opposition day. It was established by your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was no precedent for banning statements or ruling on how and when they should be made, particularly on an Opposition day.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a number of charges against the Government, the first of which was on the presentation of Government policy. As we have said many times from the Dispatch Box, we have never shrunk from establishing in public that presentation is a key element of Government strategy. We do not simply believe that we have a right; there is a legitimate expectation that we present the Government's case in the most effective way possible. Presentation is extremely important if we are to have effective governance. People must know what we intend to do and how we intend to achieve it. We do not shrink from taking any measures required to ensure that that is done.
Despite the attempts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to enlighten him, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed failed to differentiate between briefing and leaking. There is a big difference between the responsibility of Ministers and officials to ensure that the background and context of papers and policy announcements are put into the public domain, and the leaking of a policy change or White Paper.
What I found most extraordinary about the right hon. Gentleman was his defence of the Lords. Perhaps he expects that, in the not-too-distant future, he will join friends of his in another place. This House and the Government have not just a right but a responsibility to do what we believe is right with amendments to legislation that come back from the other place. Merely to quote a list of amendments which this House chose to change in accordance with the manifesto of the elected Government was extraordinary.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister not remember occasions, when he was in opposition, when he challenged the Government of the day to accept sensible amendments tabled by another place against the wishes of that Government? Will he recognise that that must sometimes happen under his Government?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I recognise that there were occasions when we argued that the Government of the day should accept sensible amendments. Indeed, I recall one such occasion when the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) fully supported us, and we eventually defeated the Government. However, the key word is "sensible", rather than wrecking amendments, or amendments designed simply to defeat the will of this House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is entitled to say that he does not agree with the amendment on students at Scottish universities, but is he seriously telling the House that it was not sensible?

Mr. Kilfoyle: This is a straightforward issue of a policy clash. The policy of the elected Government of the day, who have a record 180 majority, will prevail if there is a policy clash. I must make an important point: we take each of those amendments on their merit. We do not generalise.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I shall not give way. My time is very limited, and nobody else gave way.
The charge was risible—[Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I know the Labour manifesto, and we intend to put it into effect. If hon. Members check it, they will find that we made 161 manifesto commitments. A large proportion of those have already been achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the past 15 months.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made the charge that Tim Allan had gone away to become a lobbyist. He has not. In accordance with Nolan, there has been a gap between the time he left the employ of No. 10 and took up his new post with BSkyB. It is only fair to the individual concerned that we put that on the record.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is no longer here, because he became very exercised about the

suggestion that his party was the Liberal party rather than the Liberal Democrat party. I could suggest an even better name: the party of Janus, because Liberal Democrats have the unique ability to face both ways at once. They are doing so tonight, and have done so consistently in their charges on lobbying and on leaks—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an awful lot of background noise in the Chamber. We should be able to hear the Minister.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am conscious of the time that has already been taken up by Front-Bench Members on both sides, so I shall make just one or two points in the remaining few minutes.
It was significant to me that only one Liberal Democrat Back Bencher put himself forward to speak in this debate, so seriously do his colleagues take this subject. Indeed, the number of Liberal Democrats that one sees in the Chamber now does not reflect the number that showed an interest in the debate. I am a little dismayed that they should have chosen this subject for the third time, rather than a subject that could have aroused more interest among their Members.
The Liberal Democrats made great play of singing the praises of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I am a fan of his, too, as are many Labour Members. However, we do not share the political paranoia that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) obviously has for the Minister without Portfolio. Even in making public their praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock through an early-day motion, fewer than half their Members found themselves capable of supporting that.
The Government are fully cognisant of the needs and demands of the House, and long may that remain the case. We shall continue to observe the conventions of the House, but we shall also continue to govern effectively according to the mandate given to us on 1 May 1997.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 310.

Division No. 341]
[7.7 pm


AYES


Allan. Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Keetch, Paul


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Sanders, Adrian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cotter, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Andrew Stunell and



Mr. Donald Gorrie.






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Dawson, Hilton


Ainger, Nick
Denham, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobbin, Jim


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drew, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Austin, John
Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)


Banks, Tony
Edwards, Huw


Barron, Kevin
Efford, Clive


Battle, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bayley, Hugh
Ennis, Jeff


Beard, Nigel
Fatchett, Derek


Begg, Miss Anne
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bermingham, Gerald
Flint, Caroline


Berry, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fyfe, Maria


Blizzard, Bob
Gapes, Mike


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gardiner, Barry


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradshaw, Ben
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Browne, Desmond
Godsiff, Roger


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Church, Ms Judith
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hurst, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)





Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lepper, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNamara, Kevin
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michael, Alun
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stringer, Graham


Milburn, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Eddie
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Neill, Martin
Ward, Ms Claire


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wareing, Robert N


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Watts, David


Palmer, Dr Nick
White, Brian






Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wood, Mike


Wicks, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that members of the Government are present daily in both Houses, putting forward the case for the Government's legislative and financial proposals and being held to account for its policies and actions; welcomes the all-party support for the establishment of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and the endorsement by the House of key proposals to make Parliament more effective and efficient; notes that more statements have been made by ministers this session than in the equivalent period in 1992–93, and that Cabinet ministers have given oral evidence to select committees on more occasions than the average for the past seven sessions; and believes that the Government has lived up to both its manifesto commitment and the 19 March 1997 resolution on ministerial accountability.

European Single Currency

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the debate on the European single currency. I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call Dr. Vincent Cable. [Interruption.] My apologies, I thought that Dr. Cable was opening the debate. I call Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
That this House believes that membership of the European Single Currency will be in Britain's long-term economic interests because it will promote trade, increase competitiveness, secure inward investment, reduce interest rates, boost economic stability, consolidate the City of London's pre-eminent financial market position, and promote growth, employment and Britain's influence in Europe; calls on the Government to hold a referendum on the principle of the Single Currency during the current Parliament and to join the Single Currency at the earliest practical opportunity; and in the intervening period to implement a series of policies to prepare for Single Currency membership including: joint six monthly reports by the Treasury and the Bank of England on progress towards interest rate convergence with the Euro zone, steps to secure a stable and fairly valued pound, action to align UK and Euro inflation levels and targets, and discussions with the UK's European partners aimed at promoting an accountable structure for the European Central Bank and maximum possible fiscal subsidiarity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) certainly has the qualifications, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will reply to the debate.
First, I want to explain why we have chosen to have this discussion at this time. It is not simply because my party believes that Britain should be a member of the single currency at the earliest opportunity, but because we believe that events are moving rapidly, and that the need for us to take early decisions is becoming greater by the minute. The continuing strength of sterling and the uncertainty over the euro could lead to a major flight of manufacturing investment from the United Kingdom in just a few months. If that happened, thousands of jobs would be threatened.
There is clear evidence to suggest that in crucial areas, such as key sectors of manufacturing, the United Kingdom is becoming uncompetitive. Productivity is well below that of our continental competitors, and investment is at rock bottom. We also face a higher inflation rate, higher interest rates and increasing exchange rate uncertainty. That is an awful lot of difficulties for business to take on board when making investment decisions.
To secure their markets within the euro zone when the pound is strong, some manufacturing companies may feel compelled to transfer their investments from the UK to euroland, rather than risk waiting for a possible collapse of sterling once the euro is established. Several such warnings have been made in a number of sectors, and they can no longer be ignored—the Government would be very unwise to ignore them.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a clear declaration of intent. The Government should declare the UK's intention to join the single currency, and that should be reinforced by an early referendum and by detailed steps to achieve convergence. Why is it that our major continental competitors maintain consistently high levels


of investment and productivity compared with the United Kingdom? Is it because they have enjoyed years of stable, low inflation, low interest rates and stable exchange rates?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me continue for a moment.
Our continental competitors have the certainty of knowing that they will be in the euro and what the exchange rate will be on 1 January 1999. Those factors make the climate for investment a great deal more attractive—and at much lower rates of return than are acceptable to the average British investor.
We support the Government's commitment to low inflation. We accept that it is a necessary precondition for a good investment climate. We welcomed the Government's decision to give operational independence to the Bank of England as a step towards achieving such a climate—we naturally welcomed that measure, as it is our policy. However, we deplore the unbalancing effect of the Government's fiscal policy. That is coupled with the failure of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is present and can tell us whether he accepts that he failed. When he took part in the Ken and Eddie show, he argued that time would tell who was right. Time is running out: it is now becoming more apparent who is right, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot hide behind the clock for much longer.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It takes 18 months to two years for monetary policy to take effect. The present inflation rate is 2.8 per cent. Is a 0.3 per cent. variation from the target a great failure? If I had taken any notice of the hon. Gentleman, I would have raised interest rates for no good purpose whatever, given the outturn.

Mr. Bruce: Many independent commentators share my view that, had interest rates been raised before the election, the Monetary Policy Committee might not have been faced with its present dilemma. To a certain extent, I exonerate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because the situation has been aggravated by the present Chancellor's decision to pursue a fiscal policy that has left the Monetary Policy Committee with no alternative but to put up interest rates. I am sure that we can agree on that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great enthusiasm, but would he bear in mind the fact that every previous experiment with a single currency in Europe or elsewhere in the world has resulted in a great deal of unemployment, misery and distress? History shows us that the only single currencies that can work are those under one Government, one Treasury and one system of taxation. Will the Liberal Democrats face up to that?

Mr. Bruce: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) reminds me about

the single currency that came into effect in 1707. Surely the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would not regard that currency as a failure. It is not true that all single currencies have been failures. I would not be a radical if I listened only to the prophets of doom who say that the project is bound to fail. After all, 11 countries are determined to make a success of it.
Let me deal with the Government's amendment. The Liberal Democrats welcome the change of tone that the Government's position represents as compared with that of the previous Government. We accept that they are putting in hand some practical steps to prepare for the possibility of entry. Unlike the opponents and sceptics who regard even that with suspicion, we welcome it and want them to take more such steps.
However, we are concerned about the Government's determination to postpone the referendum until the next Parliament, and about their failure to set out a clearly defined path towards membership of the single currency. The Government's amendment to our motion says that making a decision to join during the present Parliament is unrealistic. I would argue that failing to accept that the national interest may require a decision during this Parliament is unrealistic and irresponsible. The Government's case may be that we will not achieve convergence during that time. If that is true, it is partly because their policies have aggravated divergence.
If we are to join the single currency, in this Parliament or in the next, we need a clear programme now; otherwise, we will suffer drift, uncertainty and a loss of investment and coherent momentum. We must face the fact that our competitors in countries that will be founder members of the euro will face none of the uncertainties that our companies will face with regard to investment for that market.
We advocate a declaratory policy on the single currency. By that, we mean that the Government should make an immediate declaration of Britain's intention to join, subject to approval from a referendum at the earliest opportunity. The referendum should not be arbitrarily postponed beyond the next election because it is inconvenient to address the matter before that.
Such an approach would allow time to achieve convergence—it would be helpful if the Government's policy were aimed in that direction—between our own and the continental economic cycles, and would also provide a sustained period of exchange rate stability before the currencies become locked. As has been said on many occasions, the policy would give the United Kingdom greater influence over the shape of EMU.
Changing to the single currency involves up-front conversion costs, but the single currency would bring significant long-term economic gains, some of which I shall address. There would be lower interest rates, which could cut mortgage costs for householders, and debt-servicing costs for business and Government. For example, a 1 to 2 per cent. reduction in interest rates would save the average mortgage payer £275 to £575 a year. Those are real benefits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense".] Conservative Members say that that is nonsense, but if we join the single currency, it will be at converged continental interest rates, not at British levels. Our job is to make sure that we can converge and deliver that benefit. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives favour high interest rates and high mortgage costs.
Such a policy would also benefit the Government. It would help cut their annual debt-servicing costs by between £3.5 billion and £7 billion. That is equivalent to a cut of 2 to 4 per cent. off the basic rate of tax, or £250 a year for the average taxpayer.
As a trading nation, we get enormous benefit if we can reduce uncertainty for exporters. Europe is Britain's biggest export market. We export more to Belgium and the Netherlands—just those two—than to Latin America, Africa, India, Australia, China and Russia combined. Some 55 per cent. of our exports go to EU nations. Those are facts.
The policy would also crucially consolidate the City of London's pre-eminent financial market position, and I include within the City of London all the finance companies throughout the UK economy that effectively lock in to that successful market. There are different views as to how the euro might affect the City, but there are growing worries that lengthy exclusion of the UK will encourage the development of other financial centres—especially Frankfurt, which is certainly missing no opportunity to increase its importance as a trading centre within Europe.
The dilution of the UK's role as a financial centre would not just be bad for the UK: the whole EU would be diluted. We are talking about an economy of scale which benefits the whole EU market.

Mr. John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to his arguments, one of the reasons for stability in the rest of Europe is that Liberal parties throughout Europe are in favour of less Government spending and lower taxation, whereas in this country, the Liberal Democrats are in favour of more Government spending and higher taxation?

Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. He misses the fact that the social provision basis in most continental countries is higher than it is here, and that expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product on health and education is very much higher among all our major competitors. All we are anxious to do is to ensure that we have quality services here that are comparable to theirs.
The United Kingdom trades with the EU, but makes much of our investment in the United States. Some people see that as an argument for keeping our distance, but the reality is that we invest in the United States because that is the most effective way to secure a share of the North American market. As part of euroland, we can develop—using our close links with New York and other major American financial markets—as a conduit for euro-dollar investment both ways through the bridge of the UK. That will be denied to us if we are not part of the euro zone. That argument has been seriously underestimated.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman have any personal experience of the financial markets, or of working in them? If he did, and if he were taking his opinion from those who operate in them, rather than from some columnist who cannot get a

job as a consultant and is simply writing in the financial pages of a national newspaper, he would not make remarks which are unsustainable.

Mr. Bruce: I have had to buy my own furniture, so I suppose I have some knowledge of transactions. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that someone has no right to comment if they have not got their hands dirty.
If we are to secure a successful eventual merger—in our view, the sooner the better—of the single currency and sterling, we believe that what we need now, apart from an early referendum, is to set out what we would call the docking procedures for monetary union.
We believe that there are a number of things that the Government should be doing now. First, they should provide assistance to British businesses to cope with trading outside the euro zone. That seems to be uncontentious, because that is where we will be. I accept that the Financial Secretary has said that that is being done, but we are simply asking the Government to do more. We want them also to provide information on hedging exchange risk from billing in euros. We have addressed the subject of a referendum.
We need to establish a period of exchange rate stability before joining the single currency. As soon as we have had the referendum, we need to open discussions on how we can establish an appropriate rate for sterling and establish the mid-point at which we would join. We will have to have wide bands of fluctuation, but that point is already incorporated in the treaty agreements. The objective is to reduce the volatility of the British economy and to get it on the same broad course.
One of the issues that we must grasp is the gradual switch from variable to fixed-rate mortgages—by which I mean mortgages fixed for 10 or 20 years, rather than for the five years being offered by the financial institutions. The Liberal Democrats would welcome and support active Government encouragement of that.
We suggest that the Treasury and the Bank of England should produce six-monthly joint convergence reports detailing progress on fiscal and monetary policy towards our preparedness to join the single currency, and to monitor our convergence on interest rates. I suggest that such a report could usefully be presented to the Treasury Committee.

Mr. David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in certain circumstances, the reduction of interest rates to the continental level could occasion a rise in taxation in Britain to maintain the fiscal balance? Would he speculate on what would be best for the economy? Is there a balance between interest rates and taxation against the background of the stable exchange rates in the single market? That is a very important question.

Mr. Bruce: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a tendency for that debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. The debate has been stifled because there is somehow the assumption that we cannot talk about taxes as opposed to borrowing or other financial mechanisms. The previous Government said that they were cutting taxes, but put them up. The present Government said that they would not put taxes up, but they have put them up.


We take the view that it is about time we started talking about the role of taxation as a fiscal instrument and as an alternative to high interest rates. If we had had that—as we would have wished—at the start of this Parliament, interest rates could have been lower than they are now.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, next year—when the euro is launched—banks and building societies could allow people to take out mortgages in euros rather than in pounds? With the lower interest rates in euros, there would be a terrific flight to those mortgages, which would help bring down the value of the pound and would establish the popularity of the single currency.

Mr. Bruce: That is an interesting idea, but if people are to be encouraged to take it up in significant numbers, they have to have confidence in exchange rate stability. It must be set in that context. The Government would be in some difficulty if they encouraged people to do that and made them accept the risk of uncertain fluctuations in the exchange rate. I agree that in principle that is the right direction in which to move, and I have no doubt that some people will opt for it.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No. I have given way to several hon. Members, and this is a short debate.
Our measure of inflation must be in accordance with the treaty standard and the agreed EU measure. I hope that the Government will explain their progress on that. To frame fiscal policy and stabilise growth, we need to recognise the role of taxation. In the context of the current pensions debate, if there is to be some kind of additional, earnings-related, compulsory pension contribution it could be used as a fiscal adjustment in some years. Compared with taxation, that would have the advantage of inviting or directing people to give up some of their earnings but to put the money towards their pensions rather than into the Exchequer. That might make the scheme more acceptable, and the idea is worth exploring.
The European central bank should be made more accountable. We do not entirely agree with the bank's mechanisms, as compared with those of the Bank of England, which has a degree of political accountability. However, we understand the reasons for the difference, which is due to historical factors. The United Kingdom could suggest beneficial ways to make the European central bank more accountable, and we could do that more effectively if Britain was a founder member of the euro. We welcome the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that he would continue to give evidence on monetary policy to the Treasury Committee if he were a member of the European central bank.
We accept the case for amending the growth and stability pact to allow for greater flexibility in the domestic operation of fixed fiscal policy. That is perfectly reasonable because the Maastricht treaty sets a limit of 60 per cent. of GDP debt ratio. Countries that are well below that should not be subject to the same strictures as

countries that are at or above it. Of course, they should adhere to the golden rule principle over the economic cycle, which accords with the Government's current policy.
Measures to ensure a genuine single market, free competition and a more flexible labour market, mutual recognition of schools and qualifications and the liberalisation of financial services and pensions are great advances which would be of enormous benefit to the British economy. We cannot afford to shut ourselves off for much longer. All those measures would help to lock stability into the British economy and would create a climate in which people would not only enjoy the fruits of investment, low interest rates and the removal of exchange rate uncertainty, but would know that what they had secured was long term, so that they could invest with confidence at much lower rates of return than have historically been acceptable in the British economy. I commend the motion to the House.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's conviction to pursue a prudent and balanced policy in respect of United Kingdom membership of the single currency; believes that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency could bring economic benefits to Britain and to Europe; welcomes the Government's decision to make the national economic interest the key test for British entry; agrees with the Government that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision to join during the current Parliament is not realistic; commends the actions of the Government to introduce a programme of economic reforms and practical assistance for British businesses which are both in the national economic interest and will help to create a real option of joining the single currency early in the next Parliament should Government, Parliament and the people so decide; and believes that the Government's policy will bring stability to business and reflects the long-term economic interests of the country.
I should like to set out the Government's position and deal with the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on behalf of the Liberal party. The hon. Gentleman may find that he agrees with more of the Government's policy than he made out.
Our position on the single currency was set out in October by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is that, in principle, we see benefit in a successful monetary union and that a decision on membership of the single currency will be made in the national economic interest. Our decision on whether to join will be subject to the five economic tests that were set out by the Chancellor in October. If the benefits of membership are clear and unambiguous, the Government believe that Britain should be part of it. If we recommend joining the single currency, the decision will be subject to a referendum of the British people.
The test for us is based not on dogma but on economics—whether it is good for business, jobs and prosperity. Our economic interests will guide our decision. Of course there are constitutional implications, but we do not think that there is a constitutional bar to joining the single currency. Because of the constitutional implications, the economic benefits must be clear and


unambiguous. To rule out monetary union in principle, even if the economic benefits are undeniable, is not the right way to further our economic interests.

Mr. Bercow: Does the Chief Secretary think that Dr. Tietmeyer is right? If his prognosis is that entry to the European single currency will entail secession of sovereignty over direct taxation policies in due course, if not immediately, would that represent a constitutional bar to British entry? Perhaps I could have a yes or a no.

Mr. Darling: Dr. Tietmeyer is not a member of the Government, and taxation matters are for individual member states. Since we joined the Common Market, which became the European Community and is now the European Union, there has been an inevitable pooling of sovereignty. The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the previous Government, but I assume that he supported them. When they signed up to the single European Act in 1986, there was a significant pooling of sovereignty because it was recognised that that was in this country's interests. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are becoming far too excited.

Mr. Darling: Europe excites Opposition Members in a way that puzzles many independent observers.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Chief Secretary give way?

Mr. Darling: No, not just now.
To rule out monetary union in principle, although it would be in our economic interests, is not the right way to proceed. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the potential benefits are obvious in terms of trade, transparency in costs and currency stability. Provided that the single currency is soundly based and successful, it is worth joining. However, before we could consider joining, we would need to be confident that we meet the five economic tests. There must be sustainable convergence between Britain and the single currency economies; sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the need to promote employability; and the reform of the labour and capital markets in the EU. We must also consider the effect on investment, the impact on the financial services industry and whether the single currency would be good for employment.
I now come to my first criticism of the Liberal position. As I have said, for us the economic tests are crucial and it is on the basis of meeting them that we would seek the endorsement of the people in a referendum. However, the decision has to follow the tests being met. The Liberals want us to decide in advance of the tests being satisfied. More than that, they are asking for a decision through a referendum that would be held perhaps a considerable time before we know whether the tests have been satisfied. Such a fundamental question should be asked on the basis of the facts and circumstances that prevail at the time at which people are asked to decide. Any significant gap between a referendum and joining the single currency would undermine the referendum's conclusion. The hon. Member for Gordon must explain how he can justify holding a referendum now, in a vacuum, before we know

whether the convergence and the stability to which he referred have occurred. That would undermine the basis on which a referendum ought to be held.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister makes a perfectly fair point. We say that a referendum should be held early rather than late and that Parliament's decision is arbitrary. We need to know what the Government are doing to achieve their tests and an explanation of how a referendum could be held at that point when it will take another three years to achieve membership. Is it not sensible to embark on a policy and then secure consent for the principle, with final details being determined by the Government? That is the only way to deliver.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. He says that, before we join, there must be convergence and preparations for a single currency and that, after that, there can be a decision. Surely the correct way to proceed is for the Government to recommend to the British people that, on the basis of the economic tests, we should join, and to ask the people to agree. To ask people to agree now in a vacuum, before we know whether the economic tests have been satisfied, would completely undermine the basis of a referendum. Tomorrow morning, when the hon. Gentleman reads what he has said, he will agree that his position is nonsensical.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Government have decided in principle to join the single currency; they believe that that it is the correct thing to do. Why can they not allow the British people to decide in principle whether it is the correct thing to do, or do the Government think that, somehow, the British people are sophisticated economic forecasters who can decide suddenly whether the five tests have been met?

Mr. Darling: The Government's position is that, if we meet the economic tests that the Chancellor set out in this House last October, and if the tests show that it would be in our interests to join the single currency, we shall recommend that to the British people and invite them to endorse that proposition in a referendum. What we cannot do is ask people to vote some years, possibly, in advance of that decision, without people knowing what it is that they are voting for.

Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: No, I shall not at the moment.
The position that the Liberals are adopting is nonsensical.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: No. I should like to make some progress. I am aware of the fact that this is a Liberal debate and that many Liberal Members want to speak. I do not want to monopolise the time. I should prefer it if the hon. Gentleman reflected on the irrationality of asking people to vote before they knew whether the economic tests that we have set out have been satisfied. The people have to judge whether they believe that it is in this country's


interests to join any single currency and they cannot do that in the abstract; they cannot do it in the way that the Liberals suggest.

Mr. Gill: In terms of the question that should be asked of the British people, would it not be far more honest if the Government were to invite the British people to express an opinion on whether they wanted political union? It is totally unprecedented for there to be a single currency in any state that has not first created political union. Are not the right hon. Gentleman and his Government being disingenuous in putting the proposition of a single currency before the question of political union?

Mr. Darling: No one is advocating political union. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a constitutional bar to joining the single currency; I do not. The Government's position is that, although constitutional factors have to be considered, there is no constitutional bar to joining.
The Liberals say that they want us to join the single currency at the earliest possible opportunity, yet the hon. Member for Gordon said that, of course, there had to be stability. He said that we needed stability, yet he wants to join before we have it. He well knows—indeed, he made the point—that one of the problems that this country has faced over the years is that we have had instability: periods of boom and bust, of stop and go. We need to achieve economic stability, which is precisely what this Government's economic policies are being directed towards.
Our position is clear: we join when it is in our economic interest to do so and we are not at that stage now. Let us look, for example, at interest rates. Interest rates here are at 7.5 per cent. In Germany, they are at 3.3 per cent., reflecting the fact that it is at a different stage of the economic cycle. We need a period of stability and settled convergence before we can join, and our policies are designed to achieve that.
The Government's economic policy is to achieve long-term sustainable growth, stability, an end to the damaging cycle of boom and bust and to the high interest rates that are way above those in Europe; the hon. Member for Gordon is right about that. We are committed to low inflation, which is why we set our target of 2.5 per cent.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber until now, but I may give way to him later.
That is why we gave the Bank of England operational independence and we now have the lowest—

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: Not just now.
We now have the lowest long-term interest rates for 33 years. It is beginning to bring the stability that we want. We need to avoid the historically higher rates that

we have seen here compared with other member states in Europe. That is why we have put in place the code for fiscal stability and set out tough fiscal rules in the economic and fiscal strategy report.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Gordon to say that, somehow, we are spending too much, but, every day, just about for the past 18 months, he has been telling us that we have not been spending enough. Today, he has changed his position altogether.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: They are both correct.

Mr. Darling: So the hon. Gentleman wants us to spend more and less at the same time.
The Government are committed to stability, which is why we have set prudent and cautious spending plans for the next three years and why we have made other changes, adopting tough fiscal rules to ensure we get the stability that has eluded successive Governments in the past. It is a policy which will ensure stability and a competitive pound over the medium term, because a sound currency is a product of a sound economy. Therefore, we are creating a stable economic environment. We shall get sustainable long-term growth, low inflation and sound public finances. That is good for the country in itself, as well as being a necessary pre-condition were we to join the single currency.

Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: Not just now.
The Liberals seem to be distracted by short-term pressures from the course that we have adopted. The hon. Member for Gordon said that one of the reasons why he wanted to join the single currency now was because of the difficulties with the value of the pound at present. That is precisely the wrong reason to join a single currency—to try to run away from short-term pressures here at the moment. That is no basis for any rational policy.
The hon. Member is right to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that we are able to make an informed choice at the appropriate time. He is right, too, to say that, when we took office, we found that no practical preparations had been made because of the paralysis that afflicted the previous Government over all matters European.
In five months' time, the single currency will become a reality. A German business selling products to France, for example, or the Netherlands will be able to do so without exchange rate risk and with lower transaction costs, which, of course, will pose a competitive challenge to companies in this country.
Next year, we shall begin to see the euro circulate and, in this country, some suppliers will price goods both in euros and sterling, so we need to prepare for the European single currency. It will affect us, which is why the Government have spent so much time over the past year or so preparing for the single currency. We have done that, so that our businesses are not placed at a competitive disadvantage because of the lack of preparations that we inherited.
That desire to ensure that we are part of the European Union—the hon. Member for Gordon is right: 50 per cent. of our trade is within Europe—led us to believe that we


had to embark on an intensive period of preparation, so that we could make a realistic decision on whether to join the single currency, probably at the beginning of the next Parliament, when the decision may be made.
At least one part of the Conservative position will be advanced from the Conservative Front-Bench team tonight. I am aware of the fact that the other half of the Conservative party has turned out tonight. It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two positions that will be advanced. I do not understand how the Conservatives can rule out joining for 10 years. Why 10? Why not five, 15 or 20? There is no logic in their position. It is based not on economic considerations or constitutional principle, but on narrow party political considerations. It is whatever will hold the Tory party together at the next election.
As we can see tonight, the Conservatives are completely split and bitterly divided. Narrow party interest will triumph over the national interest of this country. As long as that remains the case, they will never be able to govern in the national interest.
Our policy is to prepare and then decide. We are introducing a programme of economic reform and practical assistance for British business. Our policy is in the national interest: a prudent and balanced policy that puts our economic interests first and reflects the country's long-term interests.

Mr. Francis Maude: This is obviously an extremely important topic and it is good for the House to have the chance to debate it discursively. I appreciate that this is a short debate and I want to be as quick as I can. The only point that I should make at the outset on the Liberal Democrat motion is to lament the death of irony. The Liberal Democrats can solemnly, at teatime, move a motion mourning the departure of parliamentary democracy and, at suppertime, move a motion that, on any footing, has a serious impact on parliamentary democracy.
It is important that, on this subject, the issues and arguments are properly ventilated and examined, and that we do not proceed by way of assertion, as has sometimes happened. It is important also that parties are clear about their position. To their credit, the Liberal Democrats have been straightforward; they have expressed their full commitment in principle to the single currency. That has been their position for a long time, and that is perfectly honourable; there is nothing discreditable about it. However, for some time, Labour Members have tried to have it both ways. We need only cast our minds back to April 1997, shortly before the general election, when an exclusive interview with the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, appeared under the headline "My love for the £". That affair was as short-lived as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's love affair with prudence—not very long.
It was not long after the election that the Labour party became fully committed in principle. It has tried to hedge around monetary union since then, but we have only to go back to Hansard to read the Government's actual words. Labour Members did not try to fudge it then in the way that they have subsequently tried to do. The Chancellor

was admirably explicit; indeed, he was quite boastful and very pleased with himself. He said:
We are the first British Government to declare for the principle of monetary union, the first to state that there is no overriding constitutional bar to membership".—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 588.]
The Government have tried to deny it since, but that was a clear, dogmatic commitment in principle to joining the single currency. They have taken a curious path to get to that point, but it is now the clear, unequivocal position—a dogmatic commitment in principle, subject only to technical issues of timing. Last week, the Chancellor went all the way to "Sun valley" to reassert that dogmatic commitment in principle.
Today's debate allows us to expose the divide between the dogmatic approach of Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the pragmatic approach of the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I will cheerfully elaborate on that. The Labour Government are committed in principle, although they acknowledge that it would be disastrous for Britain—the Chief Secretary in effect admitted that—at the present time. As we know, the Liberal Democrats favour entry at the earliest possible opportunity. The Conservatives' pragmatic approach is to monitor how the euro performs over an economic cycle, in good times as well as bad; only then should responsible politicians start to come to a decision on whether it is right for Britain to join. That is why we have made it clear that we oppose Britain's joining the euro during this Parliament and the next. That is the pragmatic approach.
The Chief Secretary sought to have some merriment around the idea of a period of 10 years. I have to tell him that the Conservative party has never talked about ruling out joining for 10 years—

Mr. Darling: Yes, 10 years.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman is quite deliberately perpetrating a myth. We have said that we rule out joining for this Parliament and the next—[Interruption.] We do not know how long that will be. It is wrong to suggest that ruling out something for the lifetime of a Parliament is alien and difficult for politicians—it is the sort of period in which politicians operate. That is the position we adopted and the one with which we will stay.

Mr. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman foresee any circumstances in which a Conservative Government would ever join the single currency?

Mr. Maude: At the moment I cannot, but I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know what the position will be for all time. Serious economic issues rule out joining in this Parliament and the next, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them. The principal one is cyclical convergence. It is no accident that, for many years, the pound has had an extraordinary degree of stability against the dollar. That exchange rate stability reflects the interest rate tracking between the two economies, which in turn reflects the fact that our economic cycles—I have never heard a good reason for this; it is just a simple fact—are closely aligned. If Britain were to join the single currency without that cyclical convergence, we would have the wrong interest rate.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to say that, if we were to join, we would have lower interest rates—I accept that, if we joined today, we would have lower interest rates because Germany, France and the other founder members of euroland—the EMU 11—have a different economic cycle. They have the appropriate interest rate for their economic cycle and we have what the Bank of England currently believes to be the appropriate interest rate for Britain. That shows that we are at a different stage of the economic cycle.
To say that we should have a lower interest rate when the state of our economy demands a higher one is absurd naivety or deliberate disingenuity. It is as fatuous to say that as it is to argue that, at the next point in the cycle, when we may have low interest rates but the EMU 11 have a higher interest rate, it would automatically be right for us also to have that higher interest rate. On the basis of what the hon. Member for Gordon has argued so far, in those circumstances he would argue that it would not be right to join because it would mean higher interest rates for Britain. The point is that, unless there were sustainable cyclical convergence, Britain would have the wrong interest rate. I do not believe that the House should vote for Britain to have the wrong interest rate at any time in the future—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that we want to join a club that has a more successful record than Britain of securing lower interest rates and lower inflation over a long period? Can he name a significant period during which the average interest rate in, for example, Germany has been significantly higher than in Britain at any stage of the cycle?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is talking about our joining a club that does not exist—[Interruption.] The euro does not exist; EMU will not come into operation until 1 January next year. On any footing, it will take time to be tested and explored, to determine how it works. None of us knows at this stage whether it will be a strong currency or a weak currency; none of us knows how the pound will behave in relation to it; none of us knows how quickly or otherwise it may become an international reserve currency, or even whether it will become one at all. Those are all important unanswered questions. It is responsible and—I repeat — pragmatic to take time to explore how EMU works and develops and to determine whether it works in a way that makes it possible for Britain to join.
The Treasury's own figures show that, far from there being cyclical convergence with the founder members—the EMU 11—our economy is negatively correlated. That may change and, in many ways, it may be helpful to Britain if it does. The EMU 11 will be, and already is, an important trading partner for Britain. However, it must be right for Britain to want to see what happens—if it happens at all—and how quickly it happens before we rush into any decision.
Without there being any evidence that cyclical convergence is happening, surely that should be the end of the story for the time being. It is not practical for Britain to join a single currency when our interest rates and economic cycle are so divergent. The reasons for that

cyclical divergence from Europe and why we are not quickly moving together are clear. There are important structural differences, which in many respects are to the economic advantage of Britain. Our trade flows are different. They are not concentrated—in the way that they are in many of the founder countries of EMU—within the EMU area; they are much more global. That is not a statement of value; I am not saying whether it is good or bad; it is simply a fact. Such facts make a difference to the decision that has to be made.
Before those matters are concluded, it is important that there should be a proper assessment of convergence costs, for example. What is the estimated cost to British business of converting to the euro and of our joining the single currency? Has such an assessment been made? Has one been made by the European Commission? If the Chief Secretary can tell me that such an assessment has been made and that he has a figure that he can reveal now to the House, I shall gladly give way to him. If he, like the Government, is committed in principle to joining the single currency, he should at least be able to tell us the price tag on doing so.
Although many assessments—of greater or lesser reliability—have been made of the advantages in transaction costs of our joining the single currency, so far as I know, neither the Treasury nor the European Commission has assessed the cost of converting to the euro. It is quite important that such an assessment is made. Assessments made by others range from £20 billion to £50 billion. In the absence of the Treasury's own estimate, will the Chief Secretary confirm that that is the right range?
There has already been some discussion—I am confident that there will be more—about the constitutional effects of Britain's joining the single currency. The Chief Secretary said that no one was seeking to create a political union, but I must disillusion him on that. There are some—I make no criticism of them, as it is a perfectly honourable thing to seek to do—among our partners in Europe who wish to create a political union—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Chancellor Kohl, for one. He is perfectly open about it. I am not making a charge of conspiracy against him.
Those of us who, like me, were involved at the early stages in discussions and negotiations on the Maastricht treaty know that political union was very much the dominant motive for the German political establishment pressing for the single currency. I make no criticism of them for seeking that objective—which is a perfectly honourable one—and they have been very open about it. However, the Chief Secretary should clearly realise that there are some who wish a common currency to be created specifically for that reason.
It has never been clear to me how a currency union can exist without a political union. However, I do not claim omniscience in the matter, and retain a readiness to be persuaded by experience that a currency union can be created without a political one. Some good friends of mine—some of whom are in the Chamber—earnestly believe that such a union can be created. I respect that belief and am willing to be persuaded, by experience, over time. The need for time is another reason for Britain not


joining the currency in this Parliament and the next, so that we can begin to see the effects on political union of our being part of a monetary union on the continent.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sure that I will not persuade my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I remind him of the experience, between 1923 and the early 1970s, of the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom. Although they were in monetary union throughout that time, I do not think that President de Valera entered into any type of political union with this country.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have discussed that matter before, and we are unlikely to reach agreement on it. There is a profound difference between a small country, as an exercise of its sovereignty, temporarily pegging its currency to that of a larger country and the single currency.
There was not a monetary union then. The Irish were in effect treating the pound sterling as a gold standard. The nearest modern equivalent is Hong Kong and the US dollar. The Hong Kong Government, under British sovereignty, pegged their currency to the US dollar, and that arrangement has continued under Chinese sovereignty. However—to continue the analogy—I do not think that anyone is contending that the Chinese leadership has conceded sovereignty of Hong Kong to the United States.
There are other examples on the continent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Precisely."] The Liberal Democrats utterly fail to take the point. Establishing a single currency is very different from a small country pegging its currency to that of a larger one. The Netherlands and Germany provide an example on the continent of the latter arrangement. However, it is very different to propose creating a genuine monetary union that is not part of an exercise of sovereignty that is revocable at any stage—unlike the pegging of Ireland's currency to sterling, Hong Kong's currency to the US dollar and, in effect, the Netherlands' currency to the deutschmark. Even the Liberals must be able to see that those arrangements are different.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: I am tempted by my hon. Friend, but I want to press on. This is a short debate, and I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am therefore not prepared, arrogantly and dogmatically, to say that I know for all time that I am right. I believe that the right stance is to say, "No, we will not join in this Parliament or the next." At the end of that time, there will be some experience of how the single currency has worked in practice among economies that, at first sight, are well-equipped to work together in a monetary union. At that stage, decisions can be made on the basis of not perfect but better knowledge than we will have at any stage in this Parliament or the next.
What should the United Kingdom be doing meanwhile? Businesses in Britain should certainly be preparing for 1 January, as any business that is trading with the EMU 11 will have to accommodate use of the new single currency by them and, eventually, the euro. However, preparation is very different from the Government pushing businesses into sinking money into preparing for British membership of the single currency.

The Government themselves have accepted that, although they are committed in principle to the currency, it may not be possible.
Some suspect that a process is in train of making Britain's membership of the single currency inevitable by encouraging businesses to sink money in it, so that people say, "We have already spent a lot of money on it. We may as well do it." The Government perhaps give the game away in their own amendment, which states that the House
commends the actions of the Government to introduce a programme of…practical assistance for British businesses which…will help to create a real option of joining the single currency early in the next Parliament should Government…so decide".
It would be quite wrong, when investment is already scarce—the Government's own figures show that investment will fall over the rest of this Parliament, with all the implications that that will have for jobs—for British business to be lured into sinking money into unproductive investment, for an eventuality that by no means is certain to happen. The only effect of business investing that money is to make that eventuality marginally more likely. I emphatically tell Ministers that, although the politics of that may work for them, the economics will not work for business.
I ask the Government to give an absolute undertaking that businesses will not be encouraged to sink money in that manner. I support Ministers in encouraging businesses to prepare for creation of the single currency, on 1 January 1999.

Mr. Darling: That is a change.

Mr. Maude: The only change is that we have begun to be able to penetrate the mists surrounding the Government's intentions, to try to discern what Government policy is aimed at achieving. It has not been at all clear whether the Government's extremely expensive preparations have been devoted to encouraging businesses to prepare for creation of the currency on 1 January 1999—that will happen; it is a fact—or to prepare for our possible future membership. I ask Ministers to give an absolute undertaking that that effort, money and propagandising—it is a perfectly proper use of the word—will not be used in that way.
The single currency may well work for its founder continental members—the EMU 11—in the short to medium term, but that does not mean that it will certainly work for Britain. In the absence of cyclical convergence, which is an absolute precondition for Britain's successful membership, the House should not be discussing the issue. Membership is simply not a practical possibility. If the decision to join is made at some stage, it must be on the basis of clear information, following properly funded campaigns for both sides of the argument.
Since the Labour party came to office a year ago, we have seen three referendums on the mainland. Experience of their being run remotely satisfactorily is lacking.

Mr. Darling: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maude: The Chief Secretary is clearly having difficulty counting. Referendums in Scotland, Wales and London seem to me to make three. On each occasion,


legislation has not been published before the referendum, so the public have not been able to see the pig in a poke. Campaigns against the Government's view have not been properly funded, which has been objectionable and deeply unsatisfactory. If we reach the point at which there is a referendum on the single currency, it must be conducted properly. We shall look to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to make commitments on that. In summary, the Liberal Democrat motion and the Government amendment are equally flawed.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I am happy to participate in this debate and to support the Government's amendment. I do so as a positive, pro-European who believes that, in the longer run, Britain does not have an economic future outside the single currency. I welcome the opportunity to air some of the arguments.
When I talk to people in my constituency and observe opinion poll evidence on matters surrounding the single currency, I am struck by the fact that, fundamentally, people in Britain are not hostile to the idea or Euro-sceptic. They are concerned, fearful and lack an understanding of what the single currency will mean to them and their families. They therefore want the issue to be opened up.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman mentioned opinion poll evidence. Is he aware that, in the latest Gallup poll, in which people were asked whether, if there were a referendum, they would vote to replace the pound with a single currency, only 33 per cent. said yes, 65 per cent. said no and 2 per cent. were undecided?

Mr. Rammell: As with all statistics and opinion polls, it depends which one is quoted to support one's argument. There has been a detectable shift in opinion in polls since the election. Attitudes have softened; there is greater support for the concept of a single currency, and more people are prepared to accept that they are undecided.

Mr. Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the poll that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has just quoted, no fewer than 58 per cent. of Labour voters declared that they were opposed when asked, "Would you support the abolition of the pound in favour of a single European currency?" Even his party's supporters are opposed to his position on the subject.

Mr. Rammell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the start of the four-week referendum campaign in 1975 on Britain's membership of the European Community, opinion polls showed a 2:1 majority against the idea, but, by the end of the four weeks, when the issues had come out into the open and people had understood the arguments, the position was reversed.
I welcome the opportunity to support and to restate the Government's position, which is very positive, clear and a breath of fresh air compared with what went on under the previous Conservative Government. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for calling this debate in order to

open up the discussion, although, as will become clear later in my speech, I cannot support—indeed, I disagree with—several of their policy prescriptions.
The debate is helpful in underlining the fundamental mess of the Conservative party on this issue—even to this day. I do not say that as pure party political knockabout; I am not one of those who believe that the Labour party will be in power for ever and a day. It may be in government for 15, 20 or 25 years, but, at some stage, the Conservative party will return to power. If it does so with today's split policy on Europe, woe betide this country's economic interests.
Let us address some of the arguments that Conservative Members have made in the debate. The genuine position was put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) who, if I understood him, was arguing in favour of complete British withdrawal from the European Union. He said that the question in a referendum should be whether the British people support political union. If he believes, as I am sure he does, that the answer would be no, and if he believes, as I know he does from previous comments in the Chamber, that political union is already taking place, he is clearly arguing for such withdrawal. It is very worrying that there is still such a firmly held strand of opinion in the Conservative party.
The shadow Chancellor then accused the Labour party and the Labour Government of inconsistency on the issue. To anyone who remembers the election campaign, in which, day after day, a different Conservative Front Bencher and a different Conservative Back Bencher came out with their individual positions on the Conservative party manifesto, that is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Before the Conservative party lectures the Labour party on consistency, it needs to put its own house in order.
I was very taken by what the shadow Chancellor said about the Conservative party—allegedly—taking a pragmatic stance, waiting for a full economic cycle to elapse in order to judge the effectiveness and success of the single currency. We can have a debate on whether two full terms means 10 years or eight years, but, whatever the answer, we are talking about a long time. Are Conservative Members really suggesting—perhaps this can be picked up in the winding-up speeches—that if the single currency is up and running, strong and successful and, consequently, we must pay a 2 per cent. premium on our interest rates to protect the value of the pound outside such a single currency, they would still argue that we should stay outside? That would be putting ideological dogma before common sense.
I should like to state the case for the single currency—it must be made. Despite what Conservative Members said repeatedly for years when they were in government, the single currency will go ahead. They told people and businesses that there was no need to prepare for it. There is a case in this debate for their admitting that they were fundamentally wrong. Eleven countries are launching the single currency with an unprecedented degree of economic convergence. Let us look at the facts.

Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a serious matter which ought to be discussed seriously? It is a little difficult for those of us who have been totally consistent to be told that we have been inconsistent by a member of a party whose leader asked


us to withdraw from the European Union on several occasions during several election campaigns. Whatever the divisions, they ought to be treated seriously. He does his case no good at all by making such points. He can be reminded about the enormous divisions in the Labour party. Some of its members are deeply opposed to the single currency—and perfectly reasonably so, since it is a matter of some importance. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman addressed the issues.

Mr. Rammell: There are clearly different strands of opinion across the parties on the issue, but I was not the one who introduced the issue of inconsistency into the debate. It was introduced by the shadow Chancellor. The remarks of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would be far better addressed to his Front-Bench team.
I was addressing the issue of economic convergence. Since the Maastricht treaty was agreed, average Government deficits across the 15 EU countries have fallen from 6.5 to 1.6 per cent. To pretend, as some Conservative Members still do, that such convergence has not occurred and is not continuing is not an economic argument but a political argument in principle against the concept of the single currency.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman surely would not claim that the convergence criteria were met. No objective empirical analysis suggests that. No commentator—even the pro-European ones—would suggest that the criteria were not fudged.

Mr. Rammell: Conservative attacks on convergence criteria have been directed at Belgium and Italy. I am prepared to bet that if Belgium and Italy had not been included in the first wave, the Conservatives would simply have moved the goalposts, and argued against other countries. The true position of those who hold that convergence has not taken place was best summed up by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who said:
I find the word fudge is now being used in negotiations. That is obviously just a cover for those who never want a Single Currency, or even a European Union.
Let us consider the positive case for the single currency. One role of politics and government is to try to give ordinary people greater control over their lives and the decisions that affect them. The single currency is first and foremost about tackling currency speculation and the instability that flows from it, which can be tremendously damaging to a country's economy. Around 90 per cent. of transactions on foreign exchange markets are not about imports and exports, or trading and business, but are made for speculative gain. We know how damaging that can be. We all remember September 1992, when interest rates went up 4 per cent. in one day while billions of pounds were being lost in a futile attempt to protect sterling against speculation.
The crux of the matter is that if pooling some sovereignty allows us greater control over our economic affairs and the value of our currency, it is a price worth paying. I was disappointed by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) because I intended to quote the concise and effective argument on sovereignty that he advanced when I shared a platform

with him recently to discuss the single currency. He said that sovereignty without power is meaningless, and he was absolutely right. He cited our sovereign ability to declare war on the United States, adding that we would never do so—no matter what the circumstances, or the justification—because we do not have the power to win. That argument applies just as well to sovereign control of the currency if we have no ability to control the currency or to gain stability.

Mr. Hayes: May I test the hon. Gentleman's philosophical position? He has said that a right is not worth having unless one exercises it. That position could apply to an enormous number of political and personal rights, but not to exercise a right surely does not make it not worth having.

Mr. Rammell: If we can achieve our end more effectively by pooling some sovereignty than we can by standing alone, it is worth considering it.

Mr. Bercow: When the United Kingdom was forcibly ejected from the extended recession mechanism, we exercised sovereignty for the betterment of our commercial interest by cutting interest rates, which we were powerless to do within the mechanism, of which the hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter.

Mr. Rammell: I do not want to rake over the coals of the previous Conservative Government's problems. A balanced judgment needs to be made. If we pool sovereignty and join the single currency, the downside is loss of immediate operational control of interest rates within our national boundaries, but the benefits of the single currency will outweigh that loss. Among the benefits are reduced transaction costs, and the European Commission estimates that the UK would save about £3 billion a year. Price transparency is another advantage. When we enter the euro, we will be able to make genuine comparisons between prices, ending the nonsensical situation in which a Ford Fiesta costs 50 per cent. more in Britain than in Portugal, for no justifiable or logical reason.
The red herring always offered by opponents of economic and monetary union is that the single currency will remove our ability to set our tax levels. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty justifies that view. The treaty seeks to establish Government deficits at the sensible level of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. That still means that member states can have a high-tax, high-spend sensible deficit, or a low-tax, low-spend sensible deficit. The false argument about taxes needs to be nailed.
Before coming here tonight, I took the trouble to re-read my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's October statement. The passage of time sometimes affects the memory, and that statement was more clear and positive on the single currency than I had remembered. The Chancellor said that we supported the principle of the single currency, that we wanted it to succeed and that we recognised that there would be significant gains in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. He said that there is no constitutional bar to joining. He said that we were not convergent with the economies of the rest of Europe, particularly because of our interest rates, and that sustainable convergence was required.
The Chancellor also said that preparations for the single currency had barely begun because of the splits in the previous Conservative Government, and because of their heads-in-the-sand approach. I have read polls stating that only 14 per cent. of businesses are preparing for the single currency, which emphasises how right the Government are to address preparation. Once preparation and convergence have occurred, support for the principle of the single currency should mean that we recommend entry early in the next Parliament.
The Liberal Democrats are trying to play a constructive and supportive role, on this matter and others. However, constructive criticism can be effective only if it is credible. That requires it to be based in the politics of the real world, and I found the Liberal arguments flawed on several counts. For those of us who believe that we should participate in the single currency, it would be the worst of all worlds to time the referendum wrongly so that the argument was lost.
The Liberal Democrat motion fails to address the lack of convergence between our economy and the economies of the rest of the EU. There is a gap in interest rates of 3 to 4 per cent. To converge suddenly would mean a dramatic fall in interest rates, which would create unsustainable consumer demand that would fuel inflation and probably initiate an unsustainable housing boom. There would be massive destabilisation, which is the opposite of what the currency is intended to achieve. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said recently that if the Prime Minister set a date to join the single currency,
the pound would come down tomorrow, interest rates would come down next week"—[Official Report, 8 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 1069.].
That is a simplistic view.
In a spirit of friendship and understanding, I believe that instead of arguing for a precipitate decision on the single currency, the Liberal Democrats could spend some time on persuading their own supporters of the case for it. The irony is that the Liberal Democrats sell themselves as the most pro-European party while all available evidence suggests that Liberal Democrat supporters are the most hostile to and sceptical about the single currency.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of that, in the poll to which I alluded earlier, the figure for Lib Dem supporters of economic and monetary union was 33 per cent., the same as the national average. The figure for Lib Dem supporters who opposed it was 65 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Rammell: Counselling is available for people who indulge in too much opinion poll reading. I will give some evidence. Lib Dem supporters have been shown to be hostile to the single currency. In October 1996, a MORI poll showed Lib Dem supporters to be more likely than those of any other party to support ruling out joining the single currency in the first wave of entrants. The NOP exit poll at the general election showed Lib Dem voters to be 37 per cent. more likely than Labour voters to say that Britain should never join the single currency. I highlight that because we all have a job to do in educating people, opening up the issues and explaining what the

single currency is about and why it is important to our economic future. The Liberal Democrats should spend some time on that.
The single currency is the most important strategic economic issue that this country will face in a generation. In many senses, the way in which we ensure that Britain faces up to the decision will be one of the defining judgments on the new Labour Government. I am confident that our tactics and strategy will enable the country to face up to this hugely important issue.

Sir Raymond Whitney: I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) about the crucial importance of this topic, but I have some questions about his implied claims on the alleged consistency and unity of his party. I join him in congratulating the Liberal Democrats on giving us an opportunity to debate this crucial subject.
To say that we must have a clear debate is a commonplace; everyone says it. Sadly, we get a series of monologues, a dialogue of the deaf. It is the same old faces in the Chamber, with a few exceptions. We make little progress. There is a debate going on, but unfortunately it is only in my party. Whether it is productive is another matter, but at least there is a dialogue.
The contrast with the Labour party is interesting. When the debate started, one or two well-known troublemaking Labour anti-European Back Benchers were here. Whether through the influence of the Whips, spin doctors or whatever, they took better advice, and have departed the field.
Apart from the divisions among Back Benchers, there are divisions in the Labour Cabinet. It is also clear that the Prime Minister's real concerns are not about his Cabinet or parliamentary colleagues but about Mr. Murdoch and The Sun. That is obvious from the extraordinary performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aping Mr. Blair's performance two year years ago when he tripped off to Queensland on the instructions of Mr. Murdoch. This time it was Mr. Brown to Idaho, but at the expense of the British taxpayer.
We need this debate. I want to make my position clear at the outset. We must recognise that the euro is beginning to happen. It comes into force on 1 January, but the impact on decision making is already with us. The fact that we are not in the euro 11 decision-making process is of significance to this country. Whichever side of the debate one is on, it is difficult to deny that we are affected already by those decisions. It is incontrovertible that we must carefully monitor how the euro develops from now, today—not 1 January or 2002 or some other date, but now. We must watch how it works, and how it impacts on Britain.
It surely makes sense to keep all the options open. We should keep the "sooner or later" options open, subject only to two criteria. The first is the referendum, on which just about all hon. Members now agree. Secondly, the decisions and recommendations of the Government and of the House, when they are made, must be in the national interest.
The phrase "in the national interest" strikes me as an otiose platitude. Who comes into Parliament or politics without taking account of the national interest?


The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government harp on about it, but it is the concrete decision and the perception that we have to understand. We must all grasp the nettle. Simply mouthing the idea of the national interest takes the debate not one inch further forward.
"Bete noire" is perhaps too strong a phrase, but my particular problem is with those who seek to wrap themselves in the Union flag with the idea of saving the pound. They assume that they are patriotic, and the rest of us are not. That strikes home to me strongly. I left a very happy, secure job in the Foreign Office, with what I hoped would be a happy future, precisely because I was deeply concerned about the threat to this country from the last Labour Government and the way that they were leading us.
Because of all this flurry about saving the pound, the Union Jack and all the rest of it, with some immodesty I was moved to look up my maiden speech. Its theme was used later by a weekly newspaper with the headline, "Stand up and speak for Britain". I therefore accept no suggestion from any hon. Member or anyone else on the other side of the debate that, if I take a positive attitude to the possibility that we might join the European single currency, whether sooner or perhaps a little later, there is something missing from my sense of patriotism or national identity. Far from it.
I believe that we must protect our country by the most sensible means. Simply to mouth, "Let us save the pound," is no way to protect the national interest of this country which we all hold so dear. If it were, the record of both Conservative and Labour Governments on saving the pound is not happy. After the war, £1 could buy $4. Now one would be lucky to get $1.50. Since 1960, the pound has dropped to 58 per cent. of its value against the dollar in 1960; against the deutschmark to 24 per cent; against the Japanese yen to 19 per cent; against the Swiss franc to 19 per cent. If that is what saving the pound means, I should like to find a more effective way of preserving the national interest.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am interested in the implication of what my hon. Friend says, which is that the value of the pound must be sustained and is something worth maintaining. Most Labour Members, and many Conservative Members, never cease to complain that the value of the pound is too high. Where does he sit in that debate?

Sir Raymond Whitney: Those who argue that saving the value of the pound is all that matters must make that case.
My point is that we must work towards an effective economic position. Two separate issues are involved: the long-term position of the currency, to which I have referred, and its tactical immediate position. It is now fashionable to believe that a lower pound is better. I do not subscribe to that view in the long term; I do not believe that we can devalue our way into prosperity—leaving aside the arguments we have had in the past year about the import problems associated with a high pound.
The idea that we can enjoy the freedom of remaining outside the single currency, allow our pound to devalue and all live happily ever after is extremely dangerous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and I have agreed strongly on that point in

recent years; it is one of the things that have held us together on this side of the political debate and of the Chamber. We believe in sound finance.
I am always surprised when the good housekeeping criteria—which the EMU criteria represent—appear to be such anathema to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They seem to want the privilege of devaluing the pound, putting up Government spending, and so on. That surely is not a policy which should unite Conservatives.
Emotional appeals to sovereignty are misleading and dangerous. They do not help this country's national interests. It must be obvious that no country—certainly not a great trading nation of this size—can be immune to international pressures and the effects of the global economy. Ever since the first world war—at the very latest—Britain has been vulnerable to international economic pressures. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can stand at the Dispatch Box and pronounce a Budget or a comprehensive spending review while remaining oblivious to, or careless of, what is happening in the world and the many pressures on sterling and our trading position.
Our national identity is not a question of sterling as such, but of how British interests are best advanced. I believe that those interests will be seriously endangered if and when the euro currency is successfully launched and becomes stable. Our famous pound would then be subject to instability and speculation. No one would argue that interest rates would be significantly higher—they would rise by two or three percentage points. Therefore, the case for keeping open the option for our entry must be overwhelming. I hope that we will consider that option much more calmly, both in my party and in the Labour party. The Government are seriously endangering that possibility.
The previous Government, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made such a great contribution, left a tremendous economic legacy to the incoming Labour Government last May. That legacy is being quickly squandered. In the past few days, report after report has made it clear that the rosy hue in which the economy was cloaked, or befogged, by the Chancellor last week is a mirage. An article in The Times of yesterday states that Britain has again become
the sick man of Europe.
Two or three leading financial companies have analysed Britain's economic prospects and found them to be very worrying. If we are not careful, and if the Government continue in the way they have begun, having quickly abandoned the righteous cloak of Conservative economic policy that they pretended to assume, there will be no option. There will be no point in the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that they will recommend that Britain joins the single currency in 2002. Our European partners will not want us, because the gap will be too wide, and that option will be closed.
As to the question whether political union automatically follows EMU, the answer must certainly be, not necessarily. Of course it could, but I know very few people in this country or in continental Europe who want anything like a centralised state. People fuss about what


the word "federal" means, but I hope that we have reached a more adult stage in the debate. The idea of a centralised state has very few supporters.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Chancellor of Germany.

Sir Raymond Whitney: No, my right hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed one supporter of Britain's being part of a much more centralised state. Articles in The Daily Telegraph suggested that Britain would be better off being dictated to by Washington rather than being a partner in the European Union.

Sir Raymond Whitney: My right hon. Friend does me and the House a service, but I shall not be tempted to discuss the damage that Mr. Black and Mr. Murdoch have done to the interests of this country.
We believe that Britain has the nous, the political experience, the wisdom and the stability to belong to a European Union that is active and effective, and that can introduce a single currency without sliding into a centralised state. Far from being unpatriotic, that is true patriotism; that is to believe in Britain, as I do most sincerely. Those on the other side of the debate—many of them my right hon. and hon. Friends—who think that we shall be somehow lured, trapped and sunk unwittingly by a centralised state do us a great disservice. I hope that they will think carefully about the implications of their position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless contributions are much shorter, many hon. Members will be very disappointed.

Mr. John Cryer: I shall try to bear your words in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been an intriguing debate. From the Liberals we have heard the usual vacuous waffle. The idea proposed by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that the European central bank can somehow be made more democratic or more accountable, absolutely beggars belief. What are we going to do? Are we to have elected bankers running it? Are we going to run it along the lines of, say, the Church of England, with the Prime Ministers of western Europe appointing the bankers? I do not recall the Church of England being held up as a symbol of democracy. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not in his seat to intervene.
The contribution from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was an attack on Maastricht and everything that goes with it. I, too, am opposed to the European single currency. However, when the previous Government negotiated what became Single European Act 1985, the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament, and I do not remember him

manning the barricades at that time. He was involved in the negotiations in the lead-up to the signing of the Maastricht treaty, and he then put his name on the bottom of that treaty.
It is all very well to be worried now, but the time to have called a halt to Maastricht, the convergence criteria, the stability pact and everything else, was before the treaty was signed, not five, six, or seven years later, when the European juggernaut is already hurtling toward us at speed.
To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), I believe that an overwhelming majority of people in this country are opposed to Maastricht and to the single currency. My hon. Friend drew attention to what happened in 1975, during the last referendum on Europe. I hope that the parallel will not be too close next time around, but what happened in 1975 is that there was a U-turn by the Labour Cabinet very late in the day, which either swung behind it many Labour party members and trade unionists, who were naturally fairly opposed to membership of the Common Market, or at least sowed the seeds of confusion and division.
In 1975, there were no spending limits on the two campaigns during that referendum. I was only 11 years old at the time, but I remember how poverty-stricken the no campaign was. The yes campaign was flooded with money, as multinational companies, business men and banks poured in contributions, with the result that it was a hugely powerful, well-financed campaign which had an enormous impact at the end of the day.
Let us not forget that, in 1975, we had already been taken into the common market by the Conservatives, even though they had had no mandate to do so. During the referendum campaign, a feeling of paranoia was sown—a feeling that, even if we had not wanted to go in in the first place, to come out would mean economic catastrophe. I am sure that an attempt will be made to sow those seeds again, but I doubt whether it will work as successfully the second time.
My hon. Friend also referred to the possibility of tax harmonisation. It is true that the Maastricht treaty makes no mention of tax harmonisation, but it has to be admitted that, under the auspices of the Economic and Finance Council, there have been extensive discussions on that subject. In an answer to a question I put some time ago, and which I should perhaps have brought with me today, the Treasury refused to rule out future discussions on the harmonisation of income tax. There is plenty to worry about in that respect.
I do not deny that there are genuine euro-idealists on both sides of the House. I am not a little Englander; I am opposed to the single currency because I am an internationalist and because, sentimental old fool that I am, I believe in democratic accountability, not only in Britain, but for the people of Spain, Belgium, Germany, France and everywhere else in western and eastern Europe.
Over the past 10 or 15 years, among Labour party members and Labour Members of Parliament, there has undoubtedly been an increase in support generally for the European ideal, and an increase in the number of European idealists in the party. The reasons are, to some extent, understandable. I remember that, years ago, opposition to the common market was almost a Labour


party badge of identity; the Labour party was automatically associated in people's minds with opposition to the common market, whereas the Tory party, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), was completely supportive.
It is not too difficult to perceive the seeds of the shift in Labour's attitude toward Europe: we were stripped of much of our confidence by four election defeats, and there was a tendency to look to Europe to help us out in many ways. There was a feeling that the democratic process was starting to fall apart, and that it could be revitalised through Europe. There was a feeling that the economy was going down the chute, and that it could be pulled out by Europe. Those beliefs were completely illusory, but it is understandable why people held them.
However, even among European enthusiasts and idealists on the Labour Benches and outside the House, once they get into the nitty-gritty and the detail of the Maastricht treaty and see what the reality is, all of them—at least the ones that I know—run a mile. They have good cause: the Maastricht treaty is a charter for taking political power away from the people and away from voters, and handing it to a tiny, unelected and unaccountable elite, who sit in a boardroom in Bonn or Frankfurt. To be frank, it does not matter where they sit—they can sit in London, for all I care. The fact is that they are unelected and unaccountable; they cannot be held to account by the voters of this country or of any other.
That brings me to the most important point that I want to make. The Maastricht treaty, and, for that matter, the stability pact—in fact, all the treaties that have resulted from the treaty of Paris, which was signed in the late 1940s and is the original, rather than the treaty of Rome—were concerned with a political venture.
Maastricht is a political treaty. It does not consist merely of some obscure, "ivory tower" economic argument that does not have much impact on people's lives, on Parliament and its decisions, on the legislature and on the Executive; it is a political venture. What it means is handing over the levers of power to a small group of unelected individuals—a political and economic elite who, as I have said, are accountable to no one.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Europe's political elite has had a few scares over the past 60 or 70 years or more. Following mass demobilisation after the first world war, for the first time in Britain's history the men who came home from the trenches and the women who came out of the munitions factories elected more than 100 Labour Members of Parliament. That caused a scare. Four years later, there was the general strike.
In 1945, there was a real socialist Government under the leadership of the greatest peacetime Prime Minister the country has ever seen—Clement Attlee. That Government created 3 million jobs in three years, and created the national health service, the finest socialist venture that the country has ever known. They took into public ownership utilities such as the mines, in which the number of men who had been killed was legion. Safety records went through the roof after nationalisation.
I believe that all that gave cause for concern to the political and economic elite. What the establishment has always detested is the sight of ordinary working people using their economic and political power, thinking for themselves, holding Government to account and keeping

Governments out when they do not like them. Through Maastricht, members of the establishment have found a way of removing that power and handing it to their mates in the boardrooms, and to the bankers they appoint and then stick in the European central bank in Frankfurt. That is the top and bottom of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Alan Clark: What the hon. Gentleman has articulated is the Labour party's traditional attitude, over a long period, to the European Community. What does he think altered that? He knows that, although his hon. Friends around him may instinctively feel the same, they will no longer say so. How does he account for that? He has given us—briefly encapsulated—the history of his party; what does he think has happened to his party now?

Mr. Cryer: I think that I made that clear earlier. Four election defeats drained away some of the confidence that the Labour party had before 1979. As I said, however, even among the European idealists on the Labour Benches, the vast majority are very critical of the Maastricht treaty, the stability pact and the Single European Act. I do not think that that has changed appreciably over the past few years.
I want to put two questions to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. She will know of the McDougall report, which said that, in the creation of a single currency and a European central bank, it would be necessary to create large structural funds that would have to be moved around Europe. At the bare minimum, that means increasing the standard rate of income tax by 5p in the pound. We are talking about a huge amount of money. Where will it come from?
My second question is this. We are already seeing the cranking up of the propaganda machine in favour of a single currency. We are seeing 32-ft trailers going around the country, visiting schools and communities, packed with pro-European monetary union material that is being distributed to schoolchildren. I find that rather worrying; it smacks of 1984.
The people who are paying for that propaganda are us, and those whom we represent. The taxpayers' money is going to Brussels, and is then being pumped back into the propaganda machine that pays for those trailers to trail around the country. It will pay for all sorts of other things in the run-up to the referendum, whenever that happens—presumably involving advertising, posters, leaflets and so forth. May we have a guarantee that taxpayers' money will also be used to provide information—propaganda—opposing a single currency?

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in 1986, an Education Act was passed, one of whose provisions was that politically controversial subjects, if taught in schools, must be taught in an impartial and balanced way? If his picture of the one-sided propaganda is correct—as I think it is—what is happening is not only undemocratic and immoral, but illegal.

Mr. Cryer: I am not sure it is, because this activity is not taking place in schools. I may be wrong, but I do not think that that is happening. It is happening outside schools, largely in communities. My real point is whether taxpayers' money will be used to provide the opposite case and to argue against the single currency, the Maastricht treaty and everything that goes along with them.
I was elected to this place to represent 60,000 people in Hornchurch and Rainham. I exercise my vote in this place on their behalf. They obviously have a right to a say in any dilution of that vote. I was elected to defend living standards, jobs and public services such as the national health service. I see the Maastricht treaty and the stability pact and everything that goes with them as a direct threat to the reasons for my election.
It occurs to me that, during the election campaign, the single currency was raised, I would think, by one in three or one in four of those I approached on the doorstep. I never came across anyone who supported the single currency. No other issue was raised as much on the doorstep.

Mr. Rammell: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about accountability and control. However, if he is opposed to the Maastricht treaty and the single currency as he argues, what alternative mechanism would he suggest for dealing with international currency speculation?

Mr. Cryer: Probably we saw it 50 years ago with Bretton Woods, which provided quite an effective method for quite a long time, or a few decades.
I remind my hon. Friend that we were told that the exchange rate mechanism was necessary, and that we had to be part of it. It was do or die—we had to join, or outside we would perish. We ended up spending £10 billion in one day. We crashed out, and from Black Wednesday we ended up devaluing and dropping interest rates. That led to a recovery in manufacturing—fairly modest, but it was recovery. If we were inside the single currency, we could not do that, because we would not have the sovereign power to devalue and to change interest rates. We would also lose power over the other economic levers.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a pleasure, and rather surprising these days, to follow a Labour party Euro-sceptic. I think that every faction in the House would agree that we are discussing probably the most important political and economic decision of the past few years, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) said.
If members of the public read the report of the debate they will find that the greatest confusion exists among all factions about precisely how the decision should best be taken. That gave rise to the most animated debate between the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and the Chief Secretary about the timing of the referendum.
I shall confine myself to the official Front-Bench positions and leave out the positions of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and me as Back-Bench dissidents. The Liberal position appears to be that there should be a referendum now and that we should join the single currency almost straight away regardless, in the optimistic hope that economic conditions will prove right. The Government's position is, "Let us wait until we have decided that the economic conditions are right and then have the referendum on the whole issue." My party's official position is that these economic problems will be terribly difficult to determine one way or the other for at

least the next two Parliaments, and that at some time after that we should move to a referendum, when the political and economic issues can be discussed.
All this is confusing. I have to say, as an opponent of the Liberal Democrats, that I find myself nearer to their position, but I am not very satisfied with the economic part of it. We must ask ourselves what the referendum is meant to be for. Everyone in the House is agreed that the House will not determine the issue. We have handed over its determination to a referendum.
The time was when the respect in which I agreed with my right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and our erstwhile colleague Mr. Michael Portillo on this subject was that I was against deciding the issue by means of a referendum. We agreed to have a referendum in the interests of party unity. The agreement did not quite achieve that, but there was a better argument. The argument was that the referendum would determine the constitutional issue. It is the constitutional issue which divides the House across party lines; which divides the Conservative party; and which divides the Labour party, as we have just heard.
There are those who believe that there is a constitutional bar, and that regardless of whether the single currency succeeds, there are political objections to joining. For that reason, I believe that we should hold the referendum comparatively early: the value of that is that it will enable us to move on to a debate. Until we resolve that issue by the route that we choose, there will be tremendous political and economic uncertainty surrounding the United Kingdom's relationships with the European Union. The political uncertainty is bad for this country's interests, and the economic uncertainty is extremely bad for our economic prospects.
Personally, I do not think that there is a constitutional bar. I do not believe that going into the European central bank and pooling monetary policy would automatically lead to handing over tax or handing over control of public spending. I would support a continued veto of that. I do not believe that it would lead to the kind of political union that my Euro-sceptic right hon. and hon. Friends believe would follow. Political union has always been one of the aims of the European Union, but not the centralised state that they think will inevitably follow.
I would hold a referendum early. Thereafter, it is for the House to decide when the economic conditions are right, and for the Government to face up to the fact that they must start constructing their policy to produce conditions in which that economic issue can be resolved. My own view is that we cannot join at present. The conditions are wrong, and it would be wrong to take our interest rates down to European levels now.
It will soon become apparent whether the single currency will succeed. If it succeeds, it will, in my opinion, soon be clear that the balance between the risks of going in and the risks of staying outside is heavily in favour of going in. The decision will never be clear cut. It will never be obvious when we should join. There will always be a judgment to be made.
In the next year or two, it will be perfectly obvious whether we are gaining economic benefits or advantages from staying out. Of course, I understand why people are worried about the risks of going in. The risks of staying out too long are seriously understated. We all talk about


the single currency succeeding, but no one ever defines what we mean by that. Success means low inflation, fiscal stability and the attraction of inward investment. If we have a volatile exchange rate, the risks of staying outside are that it will drive away inward investment. We will also discover that we have lost a great deal of influence on economic policy making on the continent.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not believe that I could complete a speech in five minutes. I scarcely believed it myself, but I have almost made it.
My final point is that it is all very well to attack my party for choosing a timetable that is plainly not pragmatic—it is plainly based on putting the decision to the Greek calends and hoping that it will go away—but the Government are equally guilty. The courageous words out in the Rocky mountains are just a repetition of a position that is not strong enough. The reason for waiting until the next election is all a calculation of media influence, the likelihood of winning and other factors. If the Government are serious in their intention, they should start pitching policy and preparing now, so that, if the public can be satisfied that the political implications are in this country's interests, the economic conditions are more likely to be achieved

Mr. George Stevenson: In the time available to me, I shall make three brief points. I support the Government amendment and profoundly disagree with the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I thought that the Government's stated policy conveyed through the Chancellor's statement a few months ago was that we are in favour of the principle. Therefore, an early referendum, without some hard facts to put before the British people, would be a cynical and wasted exercise.
People have been talking about sovereignty for many years. The subject makes for an interesting debate, but when one asks people what they mean by sovereignty, they start to scratch their heads. Suppose we remind them of the day that sterling crashed out of the exchange rate mechanism, and start to construct an argument about sovereignty around that issue: it is as if the previous Government, exercising their sovereignty, planned that we would crash out of the ERM, and planned interest rates of 15 per cent. The argument about sovereignty is hollow in the modern world in which we live, with global economies and financial movements across the world at the flick of an eye. I agree with some of the comments made by Opposition Members about sovereignty, but we must be careful about those arguments.
There seems to be an assumption—it is inherent in the Liberal Democrat motion—that the single currency will be a roaring success. I am prepared to wait and see whether it is, which is why I support the Government's position. However, it is by no means certain that it will be the success that some would have us believe. I hope that it will be, because the agenda has moved on from the days when we talked about a referendum in 1975 and nobody mentioned a single currency. Even when the Single European Act was passed in 1985, a single currency was not mentioned. It was not until the late 1980s that people began to discuss a single currency, so the debate has moved on. I believe that the single currency will happen, but I am not convinced that it will be a success, which is why the Government's policy is right.
The Government have said that there is no question of putting taxation on the agenda, and I support that position. Although we will have to wait and see whether the single currency is successful, there will undoubtedly be pressures to put taxation on the agenda within the single currency area, however large it is, and those pressures will be felt soon after the single currency is established. Although taxation is not on the present Government's agenda—to be fair, it was not on the previous Government's agenda either—we all know that some in the European Union want it on the agenda. The European Union is not an event: it is an evolving process. We have already had six VAT directives; our indirect taxation is heavily influenced and controlled by the EU.
The argument that we cannot have a single currency unless we have some form of direct federal taxation can be backed up. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) shakes his head, but we would be foolish not to recognise that the argument exists. That is why this Government and the previous Government were right to say that they would oppose any movement in that direction.
My final point concerns fiscal transfers and the pressures that will begin to build up in the single currency area in Europe. The labour flexibility in Europe which the Government support will not happen overnight, so there will be pressures on employment, resulting in pockets of high unemployment in the single currency area. I believe that the Maastricht criteria and the stability pact make that inevitable. If Europe is to deal with that, considerable fiscal transfers are required. Are we prepared to contemplate that and to allow the European Union budget to increase significantly to allow it to happen? I do not have the answer to those questions. If I had, I would probably write a book. However, I am convinced that those pressures will exist.
We must have a clear debate on all the issues surrounding the single currency and ensure that we go to the British people on a recommendation that is in Britain's economic interests. Many areas need to be clarified with greater certainty before we take that enormous and historic step.

Mr. Michael Moore: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and, in the spirit of your observations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief.
This issue is vital to my constituents and to the many businesses across the Borders and in Penicuik. Hon. Members have eloquently put the case for membership of the single currency—I shall not repeat all the arguments—and passionate views on both sides of the argument have been expressed. I believe that most people recognise that there is a need to resolve the issue one way or the other. With the arguments being expressed properly and being debated not only in the Chamber but much more widely, we are confident that the argument can be won and that, in a referendum, we would get the ringing endorsement for the single currency that this country undoubtedly requires.
The issue was mentioned regularly on the doorsteps during the election campaign, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said. I, like him, found that a lot of people were hostile to the concept of a single currency, but, time and again as I debated on the doorsteps and at


specially arranged meetings, I found people beginning to understand the different levels of the argument. Many people were persuadable that the single currency is not the bad idea that it is portrayed to be in many nationalist arguments. I use that word in the narrow nationalist English sense, rather than in the Scottish sense, so that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) does not get too upset.
The debate has moved on since the election, but those discussions highlighted the fact that people need the chance for reasoned debate. The problem is that, for all the Government's words and assertions, the uncertainty that is created by their position is proving highly damaging—people do not know which way we will go, which is bad news for those in my constituency who depend heavily on exporting industries. Many of them are concerned because they have no idea where the Government are going. That is fundamental: 60 per cent. of Scotland's manufacturing exports go to European Union countries, and that pattern is repeated in my constituency where Curtis Fine Papers exports all sorts of paper, Ballantyne's Cashmere exports the highest-quality cashmere goods and Viasystems is involved in the printed circuit board market. Almost all their exports go into the EU.
For those companies, there is a strong pragmatic argument on the single currency—economic and monetary union will happen. The single currency is happening in the rest of Europe, and the United Kingdom is being left behind. Yet again, we seem to be determined to miss another vital European development—perhaps the most vital this century. Scottish companies will have to account for the single currency, regardless of whether the United Kingdom is part of it, and the benefits of being in the single currency will mostly pass them by.
Those points were reinforced this week during the Scottish Affairs Committee's visit to the Borders as part of its inquiries into inward investment and tourism. The visit highlighted beyond doubt the difficulties for areas such as the Borders in attracting and keeping businesses—infrastructure is poor, there is no assisted area status and people think that there is not a level playing field.
Crucially, one of the liveliest debates at a breakfast meeting between members of the Committee and representatives of local business, economic development officials, trade unionists and others was about the single currency. It was generally agreed that the postponement of a decision on the euro was costly to them as individual businesses, was highly risky for their future, and was damaging for their workers and employees. The highly pragmatic view was expressed around the table that it was neither in the interest of the Borders nor in the national interest to be left behind.
The rest of Europe has made its decision, but, yet again, Britain is in a quandary on a major issue. The waiting and uncertainty are creating huge problems for businesses in my constituency and across the country. We should widen the debate and move it beyond the House and the boardrooms to engage people across the United Kingdom. We have nothing to fear from that. Many people already realise that we must not be left behind, and it is time that the Government realised that, too.

Mr. Alan Clark: I approach this subject without any emotional hang-ups. I do not address it principally from the constitutional aspect: an approach which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) attributed to many of those who contribute a note of dissent to the thrust of what the Government are trying to do. I speak on behalf of humble and thrifty capitalists—of whom I am one—who, be they charities, pension funds, unit trusts, or small businesses with money on deposit, search for a store of value.
We are told that there will be uniform interest rates across the region. Plainly, that has to happen, because if there were not uniform interest rates, people could borrow in one financial centre and lend at a higher rate in another. Does the House really think that it is feasible to borrow from the Dresdner bank in Frankfurt and also from the banca di mafiosi benevolenti in Palermo at the same rate, use the money for the same purposes and move it around the whole of the region? There must be some flaw. When we view this in practical terms, we realise straight away that something is not quite right.
Huge drawings may be made on the banca di mafiosi benevolenti in Palermo, which are then distributed in the most profligate manner by the local authority and by others benefiting from the situation in Sicily. If that completely throws out of kilter all the convergence criteria to which the Italian Government professed themselves to be committed at the time when they entered the single currency, penalties will be visited on Italy. It will be fined. Fined? What if it does not pay?
We have seen that happen many times with arrangements for fining and punishing non-compliance with the economic and single market provisions of the European Union. I saw it happen when I was Minister for Trade. The French were fined for subsidising their carpet manufacturers. When did they pay? They ran it for two, three, five, seven years, and they never really paid. If countries do not pay, what happens? Are any sanctions imposed on members who do not pay their fines? If they pay the fines, or even part of them, where do they go? The closer one looks at this proposal, the more ludicrous it becomes. It is one of the many aspects of an idealised concept which will clearly not work.
If we pursue this matter a little more closely, we will see that all the ingredients are present for rapidly developing chaos in the single currency area. Very quickly, it will be open season for those very currency speculators against whom the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) told us we would be defended. The hon. Gentleman said that, once we had a single currency, the currency speculators would not be able to operate and we would be safe from them. He completely overlooked the experience of the ERM. We were told to go into the ERM to protect sterling from the currency speculators, and what happened? The currency speculators moved in very quickly and drove us out. Immediately, we had to resort—briefly and temporarily—to putting up interest rates to defend the currency, and then we got out. Everything settled down and we proceeded in smooth waters.
I tell the House absolutely candidly that the basic ingredients of a soft currency are present in all the factors that will come together in the single currency. The Liberal Democrats are keen to lower the value of the pound.


If they want a soft currency, this is the way to get it. The trouble with a soft currency is that it is susceptible to predatory risk.
The first thing that will happen when the euro runs into a bad patch is that it will be attacked by currency speculators all around the globe, and a crisis will develop—an ERM crisis to the cube root. What happens when the intrinsic value of the euro is seen to fall in relation to the dollar and the yen by, say, the Germans? The Germans have contributed the hardest and strongest element in the single currency portfolio.
The Italians do not mind—they are delighted to be signed up to something that will greatly increase the strength of their savings and the value of their currency. They see it as magnificent. However, the Germans will ask, "What is going on? We entered with our currency at a certain rate to the yen and the dollar, and we could buy that number of yen and dollars. We cannot any longer, and we want to get out."
The same thing will happen, if we go in, to the Chancellor of Exchequer—whom I am delighted and honoured to see in his place—who will find that sterling will be under greater pressure and will suffer from more acute difficulties than when it stood alone under his careful and prudent chancellorship. The euro will be in a mess. Why? Because it has been diluted by drachmas, pesetas, escudos and lira, and because it—together with the deutschmark—is being used to fund corrupt and profligate public expenditure projects right across the region.
The euro will be weakened. It will be subject to raids, and all the currency speculators and futures buyers across the globe will concentrate on it and will bring it down. If we are part of it, we can at least be grateful that with it will go the whole pretentious and fraudulent structure of European federalism.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to a debate which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) both stressed, concerns the most important strategic economic issue with which we must deal.
The speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) was also important. He recognised that, since most of us came to this House a year ago, the situation has radically changed. We are no longer dealing with an academic debate about monetary union in Europe. Just over a year ago, one could have reasonably believed that monetary union might not happen; that it might be seriously delayed; that it might fail on take-off; or, at the very least, that it would start with a limited number of members. We are now dealing with an imminent reality of a project that is taking off on time, with most members of the European Union. The markets clearly believe, from the trends and spreads in the bond market, that it has achieved a high degree of convergence.
British businesses will have to deal with monetary union as a matter of practical reality within a short period of time. Whether companies like it or not, they will be invoiced in euros. Government policy increasingly will be set in new institutions such as the euro 11. In other words, we are dealing with a rapidly moving situation. It is in

that context that we need to judge the rather leisurely time horizons that the Government have set for their own policy.
Let me start by referring to the Conservative contributions. It would be easy to mock the diversity of views, but I shall not do that because Conservative Members have treated the House seriously and have honestly set out their different views. That does them credit. Rather less creditable was the performance of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It is difficult to define precisely their current position. They have alighted on a 10-year transition period, but it is far from clear where that figure comes from. If we take the view that some people want to join now and some never want to join, 10 is a rough average between zero and infinity. It is an extremely obscure process of deduction.
Another question that was left open by the Opposition is what they think the British exchange rate policy should be in the next decade. It would be interesting to hear that clarified. Do they envisage 10 years of a floating rate for sterling or do they forecast a period of pegging of the exchange rate or of a move from one to the other towards the end of the 10-year period? Those are important questions in terms of economic management and business, and they should be clarified.
The Chief Secretary acknowledged a substantial area of common ground with my colleagues. That was a reasonable assumption. He sketched out some of the differences in his approach and gave what, on first sight, seems to be a sensible view. He said that we should set a series of economic tests, see how they work out over a period and make a judgment. He forgot to mention that there has already been a series of economic tests. They were called the Maastricht criteria and they were considered adequate for the other members of the European Union.
The Government have their own improvised set of tests. What does that mean for British business, for what the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) called the humble and thrifty entrepreneurs who will have to compete within the common monetary union? At the moment, they are getting some general encouragement. Glossy pamphlets encourage them to prepare for monetary union, but what should those entrepreneurs do? Should they commit shareholders' resources to getting ready? If I were in business, because of the enormous uncertainty, I should be cautious about committing any of my shareholders' money to preparations.
Some of the uncertainty is inherent, but some has been generated by the way in which the Government have approached the issue. Let us consider the five tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) described the uncertainty in some of his companies. How do we know when the five tests have been passed? Unlike the Maastricht criteria, they are not quantified. If we pass three or four of the five do we wait another two years to see the outcome? We are almost certain that one of the tests, that on unemployment, will fail because unemployment will probably rise. How does a business man judge whether the economic qualifications have been realised?
There is also the uncertainty of the next general election. I am sure that the Government are confident, but politics is a strange business and none of us can


realistically predict the outcome of that election. Beyond that, there will be a referendum. We have argued for a referendum, but the democratic process could produce any outcome, and that is an additional uncertainty.
Last but not least is the rarely mentioned uncertainty of how the rest of the European Union will react to our late application for admission. There is a rather arrogant assumption about that and, in his otherwise estimable contribution, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) captured some of it by assuming that the rest of the EU would be delighted to accept British membership in five years' time on any conditions that we choose to set. That may be excessively sanguine. The other EU member states may point to the awkward loose end of two years of exchange rate stability and say that we must demonstrate that. Will the two years be tacked on to the five years?
I repeat that there is enormous uncertainty and that some of it has been created by the way in which the Government have approached the question. I share the Government's technical dilemma over the problem of convergence. Although it is real, it is easily overstated. The fact is that large parts of the British economy are not convergent. The interest rate that should apply for Scottish manufacturing is not the same interest rate that should apply for services in south-east England, but we live with a common rate.
We have an environment within Europe where a degree of convergence is happening now; we can see the indicators. The European Union in the core countries—Germany and France—is accelerating. Interest rates will have to rise. The British economy is patently slowing down and interest rates will have to fall over this Parliament.
Convergence of interest rates matters above all if we regard monetary policy as the sole determinant of how economies should be managed. One of our central criticisms of the Government is that they have not been willing to use taxation—up or down—as a way of managing economic demand. If we accept that there is a role for taxation in economic management, monetary convergence is much less important.
We can argue about those economic technical issues, but the fundamental disagreement between us and the Government has nothing to do with economic tests or economic convergence. It is about political judgment. We believe that we could win a referendum, even if it were held now and even given public opinion. The Government's priorities are elsewhere. That was eloquently revealed when the Chancellor chose a few days ago to pitch his strongest and perhaps most courageous political appeal to a bonding session of News International executives. Clearly, that is the Government's political problem.
Perhaps I may conclude, and give the Government an opportunity to reply at some length, by reiterating the key points that my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), have made on the way in which we think that the Government should proceed. We believe, and this view is shared by many Euro-sceptics, that there should be a referendum not just on the evaluation of where we are economically, but on the fundamental principles—whether one is a

Euro-sceptic or a supporter of EMU, there are fundamental principles of sovereignty and long-term political commitment. We believe that that should be tested out in a referendum. That should be held to establish the framework within which economic judgments are then made. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) also saw that sequence as the logical one.
Therefore, we support an early referendum. We believe that the Government would add credibility to their commitment to monetary policy if they had a clear declaration of intent. They make supportive noises—we recognise that—but a clear declaration of intent would be more valuable.
We believe that the Government should give a much clearer lead in some of what we call the docking manoeuvres: some of the preparatory measures that the Government will have to make. The Government tell business to get ready for monetary union, but they have much preparation to do themselves. The adjustment process for the Bank of England will be difficult. Switching to fixed interest rates for the housing market will not be easy to achieve. Achieving a fixed exchange rate from where we are now will not be easy. The docking manoeuvres—the transition—need to be properly explained and set out, as we have tried to do constructively from these Benches.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We have had a very interesting and mature debate—suffice it to say that it has been so mature that the bovver boys have disappeared. [Interruption.] I do not honestly class the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) as a bovver boy. We can discuss that later.
I commend the Liberal Democrats for having this debate because it has exposed some interesting issues. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) exposed the difference between us. I accept that there is much that unites us on this issue, but he argues for a referendum on the principle, while acknowledging that many of the pre-conditions are not yet right, whereas we say that we must get the pre-conditions right in terms of economic convergence and then put the economic case for the single currency to the British people.
That is a substantive difference. It comes back to the issue of preparation. When we went into the Treasury on 2 May last year, the one thing that was glaringly obvious was that the single currency was the subject that dare not speak its name. The previous Government had been so riven by divisions on it that the necessary and practical preparations for a significant and major change—not necessarily for us, but for our European partners, which would therefore impact on us—had not even been thought about.
During tonight's debate, that schism has become more and more apparent. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in a brief but succinct speech, showed a significant change in his position. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, his position was that we should keep our options open. Tonight, he argued for an early referendum.
Many hon. Members believe that the stance of the Conservative party is no single currency for at least 10 years. However, in response to a question from my


right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), said that he could not see a time when Britain would join a single currency. That is a significant change on which commentators and we will reflect for some time.
Tonight, the debate has concentrated on an issue that should have been concentrated on by the previous Government. The last time we debated it was on 31 April, on the eve of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and me going to Brussels for that significant weekend—[Laughter.] I am afraid that the juvenile tendency has crept back in again. On that weekend, 11 countries decided to join the single currency. Eleven countries are to join the euro zone. The European central bank is now up and running—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members seem to be having difficulty following this quite substantive issue.
This morning, I visited the Royal Mint at Llantrisant, which is preparing euro coins for France, Germany and Finland. With five months to go to the beginning of the single currency, other countries are preparing, while Britain is having to run fast to catch up because the previous Government could not bear to address the issues involved in preparing for a single currency. There are major issues. They are not just about information technology and changing accountancy; they are strategic issues for British business to ensure our competitiveness. That point was missed by the shadow Chancellor when he spoke. Significant strategic decisions must be taken.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that if we made the decision to join the single currency, that would alter the position of sterling. He has fallen into the trap that the previous Government fell into—seeking short-term solutions rather than long-term solutions for long-term gain. One of the key elements in our decision on a single currency—and, indeed, in our relationship with our partners on the issue of a single currency—must be that we have established economic stability in our country and also created the necessary convergence and flexibility to withstand external shocks. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been trying to do.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would be more convinced of our position if it were clear that we had put in place a programme that fulfilled the five tests to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred in his statement on 27 October. In fact, we have begun that process because it is sound economics. The hon. Gentleman, in a courageous speech, made the point that stability in growth is good housekeeping. It is, and it is also good and sensible economics.
The Government are achieving macro-economic stability by our sound fiscal and monetary policies. We are creating the right framework for low inflation by our reforms of the Bank of England and our commitment to monitoring the inflation target in the light of the European central bank's practices. We are ensuring that our fiscal rules and deficit reduction plan continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability and growth pact, thereby underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit. We are promoting greater flexibility in the United Kingdom economy by our welfare to work programme and our investment in long-term skills. In essence, we are

attempting to prepare, so that the British people are able to decide on the matter based on the Chancellor's sensible economic tests.
The hon. Member for Gordon asked—it is in his motion—why the Government do not publish
six monthly reports by the Treasury and the Bank of England".
We have no plans to publish such reports on interest rate convergence. As we said, it could take a period of time—which cannot be finite—to demonstrate sustainable convergence. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) well knows, economics is not an exact science. We shall have to establish a period of stability. The important issue, which the Government are addressing, is one of ensuring that that stability is delivered.
Many of the points raised by hon. Members in this debate were essentially about our economy's ability to operate successfully within a single currency. There will be significant issues in dealing with the changeover to a single currency, should we decide that it is in Britain's best economic interests to join it. As the issues are so significant, the Chancellor has already established a standing committee to examine the critical preparations for 1 January 1999. It is in the interests of every single hon. Member to stress to businesses in their constituency how important it is to make those preparations for 1 January 1999.
The Government are also addressing the larger issue—about the preparedness of British industry to become part of a single currency. Before the end of this year, the Government intend to publish a draft national changeover plan. We shall have to address the issues. The British Bankers Association has already pointed out to us the critical issues that the banking community will have to consider in preparing for the single currency. Although the financial sector is better prepared than any of the other sectors of our economy for the changeover, the other sectors must address the critical issues that will have to be considered in preparing for the transition.
The people of the United Kingdom have still to engage in the debate on the single currency—which is another argument against precipitately holding a referendum. So far, the debate has been one of yah-boo—primarily among the Euro-sceptics of the Conservative party, although I accept that there are Euro-sceptics also in the Labour ranks—rather than about the substantive issues.
How will people feel when they go to the costas in Spain and the German in the next sunbed is paying for his beer in euros, has not had to pay any commission to a travel agent before his holiday and will not have to pay whenever he comes—[Interruption.] Those are the issues that ordinary people will address. When they return to the United Kingdom from their holiday and can use euros over the counter in Marks and Spencer, they will turn round to us as politicians and ask, "What preparations have you been making?" That is when the Government will be seen to have been making the necessary preparations.
I tell the hon. Member for Gordon that I accept the Liberal Democrats' anxiety to be part of a single currency. For the first time ever, we have a British Government who are not opposed to the single currency in principle. The key issue must be whether it is in our long-term interests as an economy. That is what we are seeking to judge.
Our central Government objective of seeking to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment underlines the extent to which Britain's interest must be taken into account before we make the decision. Yes, there will be a debate in this country. I hope that it will be a reasoned one and not descend into the myopia that we have witnessed on occasions among those on the Opposition Benches.
We have had an interesting debate. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 292.

Division No. 342]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Baker, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Salmond, Alex


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Stunell, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Swinney, John


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gorrie, Donald
Wallace, James


Hancock, Mike
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Welsh, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Edward Davey and



Mr. Phil Willis.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Banks, Tony
Butler, Mrs Christine


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Begg, Miss Anne
Cann, Jamie


Beggs, Roy
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caton, Martin


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clelland, David





Coaker, Vernon
Hoey, Kate


Coffey, Ms Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Denham, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Laxton, Bob


Edwards, Huw
Lepper, David


Efford, Clive
Levitt, Tom


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ennis, Jeff
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fisher, Mark
Livingstone, Ken


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lock, David


Flint, Caroline
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fyfe, Maria
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Gardiner, Barry
McFall, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gunnell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Maxton, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Milburn, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)






Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Singh, Marsha


Morley, Elliot
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Norris, Dan
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stoate, Dr Howard


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Perham, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rapson, Syd
Vaz, Keith


Raynsford, Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Ward, Ms Claire


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wray, James


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Jonathan
Jane Kennedy and



Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's conviction to pursue a prudent and balanced policy in respect of United Kingdom membership of the single currency; believes that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency could bring economic benefits to Britain and to Europe; welcomes the Government's decision to make the national economic interest the key test for British entry; agrees with the Government that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision to join during the current Parliament is not realistic; commends the actions of the Government to introduce a programme of economic reforms and practical assistance for British businesses which are both in the national economic interest and will help to create a real option of joining the single currency early in the next Parliament should Government,

Parliament and the people so decide; and believes that the Government's policy will bring stability to business and reflects the long-term economic interests of the country.

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 and the Comprehensive Spending Review shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Dowd.]

PETITIONS

Transport (Hastings and Rye)

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am enthusiastic in presenting this petition on behalf of the thousands of my constituents who have added their names to it. It is timely because of the Government's imminent decision on the roads review. It states:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of the Residents of Hastings and Rye
Declares that for far too long our local communities have suffered economically and environmentally due to the lack of adequate Transport Infrastructure. We are faced with diminishing opportunities for inward investment and job creation due to poor access and shortage of commercial and industrial premises resulting in continuing high unemployment and deprivation.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do call upon the Government to listen to our local Member of Parliament and take the following actions without further delay.

(1) Approve the impending Improvements to the A21 Trunk Road.
(2) Approve the pending Improvements to the A259 Trunk Road including the Bexhill Bypass and the Hastings Eastern and Western Bypasses.
(3) Enter into discussions with the relevant owners and operators with the intent of achieving a major improvement in the rail service in particular with regard to the Hastings to Ashford link.


The petition has my whole-hearted support and relates to probably the most important issue facing my constituency.

To lie upon the Table.

Easter Floods

Mr. Tony Clarke: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 2,500 residents of the Far Cotton and St. James areas of Northampton who were affected by the Easter floods earlier this year. The petition states:
The Humble Petition of Residents, Business Owners and Tenants and other Citizens of the Far Cotton and St. James areas of Northampton,
Sheweth
That we, the undersigned, hereby:

1. express our deep concern that our homes and premises were flooded or otherwise affected by water, noxious substances and the like in the 1998 Easter Flood Disaster which struck part of Northampton;


2. are dismayed by the resultant extensive loss, damage and devaluation of property and premises and loss of income that we have suffered;
3. are distressed by the loss of life occasioned.
4. question the efficacy of the Inquiries so far established due to their lack of real independence or inadequate terms of reference of insufficient authority;
5. call upon Her Majesty's Government to establish a truly Independent Public Inquiry under the stewardship of a Judge of the High Court (or other suitably qualified person) having the authority to gather evidence, order the attendance of witnesses and the examination and inspection of all the relevant material with the objective of drawing conclusions and detailing recommendations as to compensation, future protective and preventative measures, apportion blame or establish fault where appropriate (including that for negligence or criminal negligence causing death) and other matters, within a Report to be published and presented to the appropriate authorities and the Minister responsible for action.


Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do support such a Comprehensive Public Inquiry as the mechanism for revealing and exposing the full facts of the aforementioned Flood Disaster
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c

To lie upon the Table.

Lockerbie

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This debate takes place in circumstances that are entirely different from those of the previous 14 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie. Rosemary Wolf, the representative of the American relatives, is reported on Ceefax this evening as saying that Britain and the United States may allow two Libyan suspects to be tried in Holland. She said that she had been told by Madeleine Albright in a meeting that a trial under Scottish law but not on Scottish soil was being explored. This Adjournment debate is really a plea of encouragement for such a course of action.
We believe that there is no realistic hope of the Libyan suspects coming to either Scotland or the United States.

Mr. Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituent Julia Cadman, whose brother died at Lockerbie, has approached me on several occasions and asked me to express her concern at the delay in the trial and offered her views on how that should proceed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the overriding issue is one of flexibility in how the trial should proceed? That trial should go ahead and there should be fair jurisdiction when it does.

Mr. Dalyell: Flexibility is extremely important, but the Libyans have given clear assurances that they would come. Of course, it is fair to point out that the court would operate under all normal provisions of Scots criminal law, except that it would be in a neutral country venue; that there would be no jury; that the jury should be replaced by an international panel of judges led by a Scot; and that the Scot leading the panel should be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be extremely useful if we were advised of what discussions, if any, have taken place between Foreign Office and Scottish Office officials, and. indeed, the Lord Advocate, in respect of the third country option, and whether those discussions were under way on 6 July, when the Scottish Grand Committee met in Edinburgh?

Mr. Dalyell: I would have to think carefully about that proposition.
The Libyans did agree that the UN Secretary-General should be asked to decide on the other, probably four, judges. I believe that they should be given a chance, and that the bottom line is a trial in Holland or no trial at all. That is the reality.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am more than grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kindness in allowing me five minutes to speak in a campaign on which he and I have engaged for many years.
Everyone would agree that there is a desperate need to ensure that we have a trial and thus clarify the facts of the appalling events that took place at Lockerbie.


That is one thing on which everyone can agree. Sadly, over the years, the prospects of a trial taking place have faded away, first, because the Libyans, rightly or wrongly, have been unwilling to send people for a trial in which they believed the jury would have been previously influenced; and, secondly, because the United Kingdom and the United States have been unwilling to make any provision to change that. However, the Libyans have now said that they would co-operate in sending the two accused persons to a third country. Now, because their rights and their faith have been challenged, they have said that, if need be, they would hand them over to a third country—Egypt.
As we understand it, the UK and the US have obviously changed their view. There are many possible reasons for that: first, there was the European Court decision which suggested that they should decide where the trial should take place; secondly, there is the fact that many countries have been breaking the sanctions, and more have said that they will break them in September unless there is a change in policy; and, thirdly, there is the fact that the Scottish Parliament might take a special interest in the issue and table legislation that would bring it into conflict with the British Government. Whatever the reason for the Government's decision, it is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—I say hon. Friend even though we sit on opposite sides of the House—that there has been what we can all agree is good news.
I want to make one simple point. Having observed all that has happened, year after year, I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is a man of integrity, will use all his power to ensure that these developments will not be a trap. We must not have a situation whereby the United States can say, "We have offered the Libyans a trial in the Hague with an independent jury, but they have turned it down. We always knew that they were rascals, twisters, vagabonds and rogues." I am afraid that there are those in the American State Department who might engage in that activity, even though I am sure that, like civil servants everywhere, most American civil servants are nice, kindly people.
I appeal to the Government to use all their power to make sure that discussions proceed with good will and integrity. The obvious step now, if the Government can confirm the various reports that we have heard, would be for officials of both Governments to enter into private discussions, to sort everything out and to ensure that real progress can be made. On the basis of what the Libyans have said, that should take only a short time; if it took five years, we would know that the assurances that they have given are bogus and could not be trusted. Personally, I believe that, for their own good reasons, Britain, the United States and Libya are now anxious to resolve matters. My hope is that the Minister of State will make it clear that it would be the intention of the UK and US Governments to enter into discussion and consultation on the basis of good will and integrity, with the intention of producing a solution. What we want to know is who carried out this dreadful deed, and we want to make sure that the guilty parties are held responsible.
There is one more point that we should all bear in mind. We should consider our responsibility towards the relations of those who lost their lives in this terrible

tragedy. We surely have a duty—much more important than party politics—to ensure that those whose relations lost their lives in an appalling tragedy will find out the facts, and the truth. I hope that the Government will say that they will use all their powers to endeavour to resolve the issue in private discussions and to ensure, first, that a trial takes place and, secondly, that the truth is told.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): First, let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no doubt that his tenacity and diligence are well recognised through his pursuing of an issue that is important not only to him, but to a much wider audience.
My hon. Friend and others who are present—my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—are merely some among those who have rightly championed the cause of the Lockerbie families. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that those families have been regular attenders when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has raised the issue in Adjournment debates, and on other occasions.
The terrorist crime that we are discussing produced two sets of victims. Obviously, there were the 270 innocent men, women and children who lost their lives on that terrible night in December 1988, but there were also the relatives and friends who have had to endure grief and uncertainty for nearly 10 years, not knowing beyond all doubt who inflicted the pain of their sad loss. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton raised the issue on behalf of his constituents, but, having spoken to members of the families involved, I know that, even after all these years, the process of grief may in this case have been made not better but worse by the passage of time.
I can only begin to imagine the sense of loss and—obviously—the thirst for justice that motivate the Lockerbie families and their friends after 10 years of the search for truth. I assure the House that the Government share their objective. Resolving the tragic crime of Lockerbie has been a priority for the Government since 1 May 1997. This was a crime involving the mass murder of 270 people, and it cannot and will not be allowed to fade away simply because of the passage of time. The Government have devoted considerable time and energy to the search for a just solution, and we will continue to do so. That commitment—along with our commitment to fight terrorism from wherever it may come—is unshakeable. I think that the House and the country would want that to be well established.
Soon after the Government were formed, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate reviewed all the evidence at his disposal, and reached the same conclusion as his predecessors in that office. Specifically, he reached the conclusion that the evidence justified the proceedings against the two Libyans accused. That was a decision of the Lord Advocate alone, and was made on the basis of the facts made available to him.
The Lord Advocate is, of course, entirely independent in the pursuit of his prosecutorial functions. I respect the Lord Advocate; I respect his decisions, as I respect


his professional skill, his judgment and his integrity. I do not say that just because it is important to record the fact that my noble and learned Friend has a difficult job to perform; I know from personal contact that he has applied himself to his task with considerable care and diligence. Moreover, from the very beginning he ensured that he went back to first principles in deciding that there was a case to answer—not just on the basis of the outrage that occurred at Lockerbie, but on the basis of the evidence that came before him.
On the basis of the Lord Advocate's decision, it was indeed right to pursue criminal proceedings. It has always been the Government's objective to secure a criminal trial at which justice would be done. We have sought to do that in accordance with the conditions set out in the three relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It remains our view, supported by the Security Council through its resolutions, that a Scottish or United States court is the place for the criminal trial, to which, as we have previously said, we would gladly invite international observers from any interested body, including the United Nations, the Organisation for African Unity, the Arab League and Libya itself. I repeat that we feel that we have nothing to hide in this process.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to intervene in the debate.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have long argued that such a trial should take place at the High Court in Edinburgh? I remind him of what the then Prime Minister said on 9 January 1996, when I asked him:
Why does the Prime Minister place so much emphasis on the need to try such persons in either Scotland or America? Why America?
The then Prime Minister said:
We are not asking them to. We think that the trial should take place in Scotland. We certainly do not think that it would be desirable—necessarily—for it to take place at The Hague. If, as they have occasionally intimated, the Libyans accept Scottish law and a Scottish judge, I know of no good reason whatsoever why the accused should not appear before a court in Scotland."— [Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 16.]
I said to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that if such a trial were impossible in Scotland, it should be held at The Hague.

Mr. Lloyd: I have heard my hon. Friend express similar sentiments in previous Adjournment debates. It is a matter of fact that he has been one of the friends—I can say this with no sentimentality attached to it—of the families of Lockerbie in wanting to pursue the matter to a conclusion, both through the House and elsewhere.
I do not speak for the previous Government, but I can certainly speak for the present Government. It has been our intention from the outset, on the basis of the Lord Advocate's view, that criminal proceedings were right and proper, and that those proceedings should take place. We want to see the accused before the courts. It remains our view that a Scottish or a United States court is the place for this criminal trial. Within that

context, we would most certainly invite international observers. It would be almost bizarre if those observers did not wish to be present in keeping with the normal traditions of, in this instance, the Scottish judicial system.
There have been—perhaps this touches on my hon. Friend's most recent intervention—criticisms of the fairness of Scottish justice and the alleged partiality of courts in Scotland. I must state very clearly that we reject those criticisms. We do so because they have no foundation and because the Scottish legal system has proved itself against the test of time and against the test of challenge. That is an important safeguard within that legal system.
We reject thee criticisms because we believe that they have no foundation. What I have said is self-evident, and I think that it will have the support of the whole House. I notice that there are in the Chamber many Members representing Scottish constituencies.
Although it is self-evident that the Scottish legal system has no apologies to make, last December two independent legal experts chosen not by the British Government or the Lord Advocate, but by the Secretary-General of the United Nations were invited to Scotland to examine the Scottish legal system for themselves. One was a distinguished Zimbabwean High Court judge and the other a distinguished Dutch judge. They came to Scotland to examine the system, and they concluded not only that the Scottish legal system was fair and independent, but that, contrary to some Libyan claims, the accused would receive a fair trial in Scotland under that judicial system, and that their rights during the pre-trial, trial and post-trial proceedings would be fully protected in accordance with international standards.
That is important. The Lord Advocate and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland took the view that there was nothing to hide from outside witnesses. Those outside experts gave the seal of validity and approval to the Scottish judicial system. We welcome that as an acknowledgement that a trial under Scottish procedures would confirm with the best standards that apply in any part of the world. I do not expect that there will be disagreement in the House with that assessment.
I said earlier that the United Kingdom upholds the binding UN Security Council resolutions concerning Lockerbie and UTA. That remains the case. Those Security Council resolutions followed other atrocities. The shooting of WPC Fletcher, which is subject to continuing interest and challenge, has always been attributed to Libyan suspects.

Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend may know, I went to Scotland Yard at the invitation of the assistant commissioner, David Veness, for a long, long meeting. I have no doubt that Scotland Yard is doing its best, but when is the inquiry likely to conclude? We were promised that a good deal earlier.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend refers to the inquiry into the shooting of WPC Fletcher. I cannot give him an answer tonight. I know that the inquiry is examining the evidence from independent television sources. It is


important for that to be completed. I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's query. I undertake to inquire for him whether it is possible to give a date for the conclusion of that inquiry.
The atrocity that took place at Lockerbie was one of a series of atrocities committed as acts of terror, whose provenance was the state policy of the Libyan Government. There was a similar incident involving the UTA aircraft, and there was the bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany in 1986. In both cases, criminal proceedings are still taking place. The disco case is still before the German courts. The French have opted for a trial of suspects in absentia. Such a procedure has no precedent and cannot be replicated under Scottish law.
Because of that pattern, it remains necessary that we uphold as binding the UN Security Council resolutions. I remind the House that, as recently as 2 July this year, the sanctions review process at the United Nations reconfirmed the sanctions package that was imposed against the Libyan Government. That is right and proper, as the review process concluded that the Libyan Government had taken no steps to conform with their obligations under those Security Council resolutions.
We pledged to the families that, when we came into office, we would be willing to explore options in order to bring justice for them and for us all, ensuring that terrorist crimes are subject to the rule of law. Over the past 15 months, we have conscientiously pursued that undertaking to the families by considering how justice could best be secured. Naturally, we shall stay in touch with our partners and allies about such issues, but I underline the fact that no decisions have been taken.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow well knows, some of the families and others have suggested that a trial in a third country under Scottish criminal procedure might offer the best way forward. It is vital that everyone understands the legal, diplomatic and political complexities of such an undertaking. As my hon. Friend knows better than I, those complexities have been rehearsed in debates that he has attended over the years. Suffice it to say that those issues are no less complex today than they were previously. I repeat that our objective is to bring the two accused to a trial that will be regarded internationally as fair and competent.
As has always been the case, the solution to this distressing case lies in the hands of the Libyan Government, who, over the past six years, have chosen to adopt a policy of intransigence and non-compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions are as binding on Libya as they are on the United Nations family. The issue remains unresolved because Libya refuses to abide by its international obligations. I note hon. Members' comments about the Libyan position, but we have seen no signs whatever of the Libyans wanting to bring the issue to a conclusion. Their track record does not lead us to conclude that they have sought to bring the matter to an end. I have already mentioned their entirely bogus assertion that a trial in Scotland would somehow not be fair, despite their acceptance more than five years ago of assurances given in that regard by the Government of the day, which we have repeated.
More recently, Libya has tried to twist the interim judgment of the International Court of Justice. The court merely decided that it wanted to consider in detail at a full hearing the issues presented to it by Libya. The key point, which Libya seeks to obscure, is that the UN Security Council resolutions still stand. Those resolutions specifically require that, to have the impact of the sanctions regime lifted, Libya must surrender the two suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States. They are extremely clear and well-defined; there is no ambiguity in the obligations to the Libyans under that process.
I am acutely conscious of the fact that a wide range of conspiracy theories has grown up about Lockerbie in the last 10 years. Some have been put to me directly by the victims' families. I say with no hint of criticism that I well understand them. It is not surprising that some bizarre theories—and some less bizarre—circulate, given that the evidence held by the prosecuting authorities must, perforce of circumstances, remain confidential to preserve the fairness of a criminal trial, which remains our aim.
We are rightly proud of the genuinely magnificent and painstaking work done by the Scottish police, led by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has paid tribute to the role of the police on more than one occasion.

Mr. Dalyell: After 10 long years, does not work get out of date? After all, key witnesses or key dramatis personae may depart this life in the course of time.

Mr. Lloyd: I have absolute sympathy with my hon. Friend about the passage of time, but I repeat that, since they came to power, the Government have sought to bring the matter to an acceptable conclusion, which would mean making sure that the two suspects appear before the courts. I must emphasise to him that, in the Lord Advocate's view, the evidential base still clearly exists to allow that prosecution to go ahead. The unacceptable passage of time has done nothing to lesson the pain of the families; indeed, it has served only to increase it. Nevertheless, that problem can be resolved only if the Libyan Government ensure that the two suspects appear before an acceptable court—a Scottish court.
We want the evidence to be tested in court at the earliest possible opportunity, and the place to do that is a Scottish or a United States court. The Libyan authorities are well aware that the way is open for them to arrange the surrender of the two accused for a fair trial in Scotland or in the United States, in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has written twice to Libyan Ministers, restating our position. The suggestion has been made that the Government refuse to talk with the Libyans to understand their point of view. That simply is not the case; we have had exchanges at Foreign Secretary level with the Libyan equivalent of a Prime Minister and with the Foreign Minister, and there are regular exchanges with the Libyan authorities in Tripoli through the British interests section.
I invite the House to draw its own conclusion from the Libyans' repeated failure to respond positively.


The sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Libya more than six years ago are still in force because of Libyan intransigence, and we must not forget that. The greatest kindness that Libya's friends could render would be to persuade the Libyan authorities to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions forthwith.
We will continue our search for justice for the sake of the families—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.